Cal Parli Invitational
2019 — Berkeley, CA/US
Ayah Abushama Paradigm
I try not to intervene on the flow. I won't fact check unless requested. Cool with off time roadmaps and tag teaming. Call as many PoOs as you want but don't be mean.
If you're rude, mean or disorganized you will lose speaker points. If you're oppressive (ableist, racist, homophobic, etc) you will lose the round.
Ram Bharadwaj Paradigm
I am a parent judge with no debating experience. I have had 4 years of judging experience, but generally do not vote on any theory arguments. If you are running topicality or any other debate technicality, please explain it clearly and explain its impacts on the round. I can handle mild speed, but please do not spread. I will take notes, but please explain the flow, especially while trying to drop opponents arguments. I normally vote heavily on impacts so be sure to clearly link all of your arguments to the weighing mechanism. Please be respectful to your opponents throughout the round.
Irene Bloemraad Paradigm
I am a parent judge who has been judging for a few years. I like debate that focuses on substance. I'm not a fan of technicalities. I will entertain kritiks. But I will be critical of them.
I encourage you to not only respond to your opponents' arguments, but also to weigh those arguments when you make your case for why I should support your position. So I will not necessarily judge against you if you do not flow every argument the opposing team throws up. I will vote against you if you miss a key argument or respond weakly.
Since I want to understand the substance of the debate, avoid spreading and speak clearly. In that same spirit, I dislike when teammates confer while opponents speak. Instead, write each other notes if you want to share an idea; be respectful to the speaker so I can hear them.
I dislike road maps. They usually add nothing. Or, if they are substantive, they should be part of your time. I do not listen to 'off-time' roadmaps or other statements.
Marc Bodnick Paradigm
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 of course) 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.
Natalie Castro Paradigm
Diane Chao Paradigm
Shirley Cheng Paradigm
Weigh, have warrants, do analysis, have good strategy
debated HS parli for 3.5 years, public forum for 2 years
tech over truth
Fine with speed(~250 wpm)
Fine with tagteaming, but only flows what speaker says
will do my best to protect, but you should still call POOs because otherwise I may not catch it, things that are kind of new but not really I will give less credence on
no shadow extensions
no stealing prep
An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication, and I am hesitant to vote on only claims
How I judge rounds
First, I get rid of things that don't matter, for example: arguments that don't have impacts because I will not vote on those.
Then I look at the arguments left and evaluate how strong each individual argument is.
**to note: for me defensive responses on an arg function as mitigation to the risk of the arg happening (ie I'll be more skeptical of the arg and I will evaluate this as the arg having very minimal risk of happening. Depending on how good the defense is, the risk will differ of course, but it's rare that I will believe an arg has 100% chance of not happening unless the other team straight up concedes it. Because this is how I evaluate args, weighing is super super super important)
Then I weigh the args. Here I take into account the amount of which the arg's offense has been mitigated, and the impact calculus done: ie magnitude, timeframe, probability
I very much enjoy any analysis as to how your impacts short-circuit theirs, and how your impacts are the internal links to theirs. high speaks will be rewarded if you can do this
I read mostly case in hs. I enjoy seeing clever scenarios, warrants, weighing arguments and strategic collapses. I care a lot about weighing. If no weighing arguments are made, I default to magnitude because I think it requires the least judge intervention.
I like them and they're cool. not a huge fan of condo, am a fan of pics though
I default to competing interps. I don't like frivolous theory and will have a lower threshold for reasonability and RVI on friv theory. I think condo(especially contradictory positions) is probably bad. I like pics, but would definitely be down for hearing pics bad theory.
Having specific interps is good.
I was not a K debater and am unfamiliar with most lit. I have a pretty good conceptual understanding of cap, biopower, security, colonialism, and ableism, but probably won't know the specific author you may read. I will probably know very little about any fancy post modern lit you may want to read. Overall, please make sure to explain your K thoroughly and don’t go too fast, and explain any weird jargon.
I do not give speaker points based on presentation. Strategic arguments, warrants, weighing, and collapsing will earn you high speaks.
also dedev is cool, will give high speaks if read well
Shrikant Chickerur Paradigm
Henry Choi Paradigm
Samiha Chowdhury Paradigm
The Aga Khan School, Dhaka ‘18
UC Berkeley ‘23
Experience: I have experience in the Worlds School format and British Parliament formats, as both a judge and a debater.
Looking forward to experiencing interesting analysis and critique of modern day motions. Be confident, be creative, and always weigh your comparatives. Best of luck to all debaters and judges!
David Chung Paradigm
Joseph Deruvo Paradigm
Emma Edelman Paradigm
UC Berkeley '22
I am newer to the debate scene and I love to see exciting and creative arguments. Make sure to respond to points of information and all contentions made by your opponents. The debate should be a genuine argument between teams rather than isolated speeches and ideas. Don't talk too fast and avoid being excessively technical. Speak not to impress but to convince.
Eric Fong Paradigm
I was a former debater and speech competitor in high school. I'm now a debate parent judging as a parent for my second year. I also judged novice tournaments in high school.
Please speak at a normal conversational rate of speed. I do not enjoy spreading, and find that it detracts from my comprehension of your arguments. Try to signpost your topics (show which argument you are discussing). This makes it easier to check my notes and your flow. Counterplans were always a favorite to hear because the other side usually doesn't have an effective response to them. Citing sources is great! Eye contact with the judge is good.
Jacob Goldstein Paradigm
Please do not spread.
Isaac Goldstein Paradigm
Current APDA and BP competitor for UC Berkeley. Previously 4 years experience in high school parliamentary for Foothill Tech high school.
I don't like rules debates. If you unnecessarily contest definitions, it will be represented in my ballot. If you write an abusive case that forces a definitions debate, it will be represented in my ballot.
If something goes unrefuted in round, I will generally accept it as "true" for the purposes of judging, although I will make some exceptions in particularly egregious cases.
I'm fine with any speed of speaking, but if you're talking truly fast you will have to roadmap well if you want your arguments on my flow.
If you want me to weigh an impact, you have to explain to me why it matters. This might mean explaining to me why something that seems obviously good (i.e. privacy, free speech/choice) is actually inherently good/valuable.
Don't use the final speech to go over your flow. I have my own. Instead, focus on telling me what matters in the round, why it matters, and why your side does it uniquely/better.
David Gomez Siu Paradigm
Conflicts: Campolindo High School, Berkeley High School, various individual constraints
Last update: February 20, 2020
I am the head coach of Berkeley High School Speech and Debate and I competed for Campolindo for 4 years, qualified twice to the TOC, quarters my senior year. I explicitly tie my ballot to the flow I keep for the round. Paradigmatically, I am inclined towards tech > 'truth' but there's no reason why tech can't also be truth - in fact, I prefer it. I will not hack for any argument, and do not paradigmatically prefer any argument over another; I will equally evaluate anything you present in front of me - read whatever you would like to. This space is yours. Please weigh, please collapse, please have impacts, please be organized. I am a scribe for the round, so I do not do work for you nor do I protect against new arguments in the last speech - call the POO. Be wary of shadow extending in front of me. I have judged most debate events before, and most of the below applies to all of them. However, I almost exclusively judge parli.
Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. Also just as important, if not more - if you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). I am an empathetic judge; my threshold for voting on that theory is based on how much abuse is present to me, and trust me when I say I usually know when people are being abusive in round. But I'm not perfect, so, help me help you make sure that teams who read abusive and violent arguments lose the round. Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Ignoring them / deliberate misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people in any sense / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab.
The debate space is yours, so I don't really care how you give your speech, just make sure I can hear what you are saying. If style causes you to be incoherent, I would prefer that you be coherent so that I can evaluate the merit of your argument. However, it is up to you how you would like to use your time and present your argument. Feel free not to adapt to me. I am fine with tag teaming, but I will only flow the words from the speaker. This means that if you're tagging in for your partner, they have to repeat what you say for me to evaluate it in the round; that speaker is guaranteed X minutes of time during which i listen to nobody but them, so it must be their words only.
I can flow your speed, but if you aren't clear I will not be able to flow. Few can go very fast and very clear. Clear does not equal slow, but it will likely help your delivery. I will yell clear or slow. Feel free not to, but know that I may not be able to understand what you are saying and therefore cannot flow it. If you are using speed to exclude your opponents from the round and/or refuse to make your speed accessible to the other team, I will not hesitate to vote on theory against it. Inclusivity is important. I flow on paper, so leave some time for me to switch sheets. Interps/texts twice please. I will almost 100% of the time ask for a text. PLEASE HAVE ONE WRITTEN FOR ME AND YOUR OPPONENTS.
Happy to hear almost any argument, except all the -isms and -obias (racism, homophobia, etc.). I am highly skeptical of arguments that require me to explicitly intervene in the debate without a warranted reason to. Blipping out a 10 second argument and asking me to vote there is going to be bad strategy in front of me. I have and will vote for tricks, but I will vote for the explanation and justification for the trick rather than the explicit iteration of it. I have a very high but not unreachable threshold for being asked to vote apart from the flow.
Be a civil and respectful human being and we'll have a great debate. I am not a fan of punting judges - everything above still applies, but I will just be very put off. Yes, that is interventionist and yes, I do think that it is justified.
Please ask for specifics in round if you are reading an especially weird argument that I may not have seen/heard before! Let me know if there is anything I can do to make the debate space more inclusive for you! I am more than happy to stall the round a little if talking through non-debate related things makes you more relaxed and able to compete at your best. If I have done something that you find problematic or has made the space harmful for anyone, please do not hesitate to either let me know or let the tournament know so that I can fix it for future rounds.
Questions or comments? Email me, firstname.lastname@example.org, contact me on FB, whatever. Please just remind me the round and your team code. I’m down to give extra feedback after rounds and to share my flows if I happened to type them for that round. Not as many people take advantage of this as they should...
Brandon Harden Paradigm
I did speech and debate in high school. I have experience in congressional debate and world schools.
What I am looking for:
I am looking for clear, well explained arguments. Make sure you signpost your arguments, if I an unable to flow your arguments then it will be dropped from the flow. Be kind to your opponents; you will loose the round if you are obviously bullying your opponent.
Surprise me with your arguments. Be creative.
What I am not looking for:
Please do not spread. I should be able to follow your arguments an be able to flow them.
Nathan Harding Paradigm
Xiaoli He Paradigm
Carol Huang Paradigm
Kimi Ishihara Paradigm
Joel Jacobs Paradigm
THE SHORT VERSION: Avoid speed and jargon, and in rebuttal, focus on fewer arguments and develop them rather than trying to win everything. Connect your arguments to the resolution, and where appropriate, to the standard for judging the round, and definitions of key terms. No tag team. No offtime content. Take at least one or two POIs, and don't make that POO unless it's clear cut and important. Unreceptive to kritiks. Raise topicality if the case is legitimately outside the resolution, but do so briefly and simply, explaining the interpretation and violation then moving on.
THE LONGER VERSION: I am the debate coach for El Cerrito High School. I've been involved in debate (all kinds) for longer than I care to admit, and parli almost the whole time. I am now a practicing lawyer.
1. I tend to focus on where the analysis is, rather than where the drops are.
2. I dislike excessive speed (that is, faster than you would talk outside of a debate round) and jargon (any term that would be unintelligible to a non-debater). Employing either of these will hurt your chances of winning, maybe by a lot.
3. Please, please, please focus on a few key issues in rebuttal and really develop them, rather than trying to cover everything, and saying little about each point. If you don't spend much (or any) time on your key offense, you're in trouble.
4. No tag teaming. It's not your turn to speak.
5. I like you, but I really don't need to shake your hand. Especially during cold and flu season.
6. Kritiks: you'll probably lose the round, and I bet you won't even get the discourse you say you want. If you read a kritik, I will start with the presumption that you are doing so to avoid clash and gain an unfair advantage in the debate. I can be convinced otherwise, but the burden is on you.
7. Topicality is a necessary rule and voting issue, but the cottage industry of theory that has blossomed around it is not only unnecessary but also a huge drag on substantive debate. Do not spend more than 30-60 seconds of any speech on topicality unless the round genuinely presents the most complex topicality question you've ever encountered, or unless you genuinely can't clash on any other argument in the round. Just explain what the Gov team is supposed to prove ("the interpretation") and why they do or don't prove it ("violation/no violation"). That's it. I don't want to hear arguments about the consequences of the violation. If the Gov doesn't affirm the resolution, they lose. If they do, I'll probably ignore topicality unless the Opp interpretation is farfetched and/or they violate the above 30-60 second rule, in which case I'll consider voting against them to deter similar topicality arguments in the future ("RVI"). But again, I will make this call based on the quality of the interpretation and violation arguments; don't waste your speech time with RVI theory.
8. Take at least one or two points of information.
9. I'm pretty loose on counterplans as long as a good debate can still be had, and I'm okay with kicking them. I have a pretty low threshold for rejecting plan inclusive counterplans, though, since they usually seem like attempts to avoid having a substantive debate.
No plans or counterplans, please. If you run one, I will probably drop you. I want traditional-style LD value debate.
I don't judge policy debate much, but when I do, none of the above applies. I'll judge it based exclusively on the flow, and try to be as tabula rasa as I can.
Dharmendra Jain Paradigm
I have judged various divisions of parliamentary debate for one year. I like good organization, interesting arguments, and clear impacts for cases. Refrain from running theory, and remember to signpost. It is important to speak well, but arguments will be prioritized over how well you speak.
Alexander James Paradigm
Hello, my name is Alexander and I'm a debate coach and former competitor. I've been in the parli world for about 7 years. I view myself as a note-taker and I evaluate the round based on who did the most effective debating. Please use impact calc in your rebuttals. Please have warrants for all your claims.
Things I dislike: I very much dislike frivolous theory arguments like "neg must only defend SQ" or "neg must only defend CP" or "AFF must have a period in their plan text". I think legit theory arguments are: PICS good/bad, Condo good/bad, must defend a plan text, must take a question, spec arguments, T: substantial, and the classic Topicality arguments. Overall, the more sheets of paper you introduce in the MG and MO, the messier the round will probably be.
I also dislike AFF Ks that completely disregard the resolution. You don't need a plan necessarily, but I think the rez is the central locus of the round and if the AFF just ignores it, the neg is inherently skewed strategically. (Especially because AFF has the PMR.)
Kenneth Jiang Paradigm
I'm a "lay judge". But you may not be out of luck because I try very hard to be objective and fair. Not all flow judges do that. I need you to do one thing to help me help you: never spread! Slow down so that I can track your flow more easily.
Yes I do track your flow. And I have a specially-purposed spreadsheet for that. I'm pretty good at analytical thinking. Impacts work only if you show me a clear link. As a matter of fact, if you try to "impact" me too hard with un-sustained contentions, I will disregard the point entirely.
I use common sense to judge. I don't have particular philosophy around tech-over-truth or truth-over-tech, because I don't believe competitive debate is a sport only debaters can understand and do. In fact, Debate is our daily life. 99% of the audience who watch presidential debates know nothing about T, K, POO or POI. But at the end of the day, it is the debater's job to use common sense to convince the "lay audience" to vote for him/her. You will be much better off with me if you think "how can I convince a stranger I meet in the coffee shop to vote for me?", instead of "how can I convince a national debate champion to vote for me?".
Now you know what principles I use when I judge a debate. Specifically:
- Point Of Order. I know what it is. You don't need to explain it to me. If you think you hear a POO, briefly explain to me why you think this is a POO. The debater who is accused of POO can briefly contest that. But don't spend too much time arguing about it. Leave the call to me.
- Dropping points. You actually can drop points without being penalized by me. Before you laugh at me, here are more details: if your opponent has a well-sustained contention and you drop it, you get penalized - pretty badly. If your opponent has a very weak contention and you pick it up and attack hard, you score. If your opponent has a weak contention and you drop it, I don't care. I actually find boring and tasteless if you go over all your points and your opponent's points just to "cover all the bases" without any depths. Again think about how presidential candidates win a debate. They don't do it by saying "hey you dropped one of my points that barely matters". They win a debate by focusing on a few contentions and sufficiently sustain them, or pick out a weak contention of the opponent and attack hard.
- Point of Information. I in general follow the rule of 2 for POIs. The speaker is expected to take 2 POIs. It's ok if you take less but it would be a slight negative sign to me, especially if you are running a weak flow that leaves quite a few holes to plug. The opposing team is expected to offer no more than 2 POIs. You can offer more if the speakers take them (they don't have to). Offer and accept POIs with proper etiquette please. It not only shows you are a professional debater, but also gives you extra time to phrase your point or response more concisely.
- About Kritik. I don't mind K's. As a matter of fact I like them. But don't expect me to have been trained on all different kinds of K's. And I don't care all the links, impacts, and alternatives. I only care about if you can explain it in a way that any reasonably intelligent person can understand, and clearly state why it matters. Again, think about common sense. If you think you can run an anthropocentrism K successfully in front of a group of audience who know nothing about debate (yes you can if you do it right!), you have a good chance to run it with me.
Finally - I know you will feel (who doesn't!) that I'm a great judge if you win and I'm a lame one if you lose. And I do make mistakes. However please be assured that I'm trying very hard to be fair and objective, because I know all of you are trying very hard to be good at debate too! Debate is fun. So just try to have fun and don't give up. All of us will get better as long as we try hard and we don't give up.
Jwalin Joshi Paradigm
short version: down for almost anyt, b inclusive. if ur racist/sexist/ableist/ all the bad ists ill automatically drop u n tank ur speaks. pls dont treat me like a lay judge it makes it very hard for me to want to vote for u.
im okay with it just slow down and be clear when me/ur opponents ask. -0.5 whenever to speaks when i yell clear and if i cant hear it i wont flow it. im open to arguments against spreading, but they must be clearly structured.
flow case is my fav kind of debate. i havent been reading the news lately so treat my topic knowledge on the res as non-existent. u can impact every argument to nuc war if u like and ill flow it and treat it as legitimate until the other team responds. please terminalize impacts, if u dont terminalize i wont do it for you unless im forced to do so.
if u straightup lie abt a warrant(make up a study, historical event, statistic) i won't drop u but -0.5 on speaks and ill drop the argument. if u tell me to fact check smt i will.
down on both aff and neg. just explain what ur running bc even if im familiar w smt if u dont explain it i wont do the work for u. also if i dont understand smt i prolly wont vote on it.
if u mo backfill ill b v open to pmr responses
id like debate to b inclusive so just take a lot of q's n stuff so ur opponents get some education even if they dont know what a k is. if u don’t that’s okay but ill prolly b somewhat biased against u subconsciously
k's/lit im familiar with if u care abt that stuff: orientalism, cap, empire, certain forms of dng, puar, nietzsche, colonialism, gbtl, anti-blackness, whiteness, biopower
prolly my least fav type of debate. im okay if u run friv theory but ill default to reasonability so make the competing interps argument in voters. if i think ur being friv -0.5 to speaks but ull still pick up if u win the shell. im also not the best at evaluating theory rds so be clear in ur rebuttals to make it easier for me.
speaks go like this:
30=winning the tournament
29-29.5 going far in this tournament
28-29 going to break
26-27 need some work
If u dont call a POO ill count the argument even if its new
my hands r sweaty so just fist bump if u wanna shake
don't make death good/ colonialism good/ racism good / morally reprehensible thing good arguments
Default to K>Theory>Case
Default ROTB is to vote for the team that best deconstructs capitalism so if u don't like that give me another weighing mechanism
if u tag team ill only flow what the speaker is saying and -0.5 every time u do it to speaks
im lazy af and wont do work for u
ill weigh what the voters tell me to weigh. if u don't make ur voter speeches clear then ill be forced to intervene.
Jawahar Karuppasamy Paradigm
Ajay Kharbanda Paradigm
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.
Kathy Kinnear Paradigm
I’m a parent judge who will do my best to flow the round. With that in mind, please speak clearly. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your arguments. Likewise, I can’t hang with spreading. Please connect the dots for me AKA signpost so I can better flow the debate.
I like good case debate. I don’t know anything about K’s and I don’t have any experience with theory (but my son talks about theory shells a LOT).
Please avoid debate lingo unless you spell it out for me.
Above all, have fun while being respectful!
Arvind Koolwal Paradigm
Leo Korsunsky Paradigm
I have experience with public forum debate, congress and extemp. I will be judging based on the strength of arguments presente and the thoroughness with which opponents arguments are addressed and refuted. I am comfortable flowing a debate but would prefer you not spread.
Anju Lashkari Paradigm
I am a parent judge, and although I don't have much experience in debate, I will do my best to flow your arguments.
Please refrain from reading Ks or other abstract arguments, and don't run frivolous theory. If there is actual abuse in the round, make it clear to me what the other team did and why I should vote them down as a result.
The Aff has the burden to clearly state the topic, define the terms of the debate, and any other background information that will be relevant. This is because I will not bring in any preexisting knowledge, or I may not (probably won't) know anything about the topic. I need to understand the topic and the context for your arguments in order to weigh their impacts.
Provide good evidence to back up your claims, and reliable warrants for your evidence. Use clear and reasonable logic to help support your claims. Use terminalized impacts to show me why your points matter and why they outweigh the opposing points.
Signpost your speech very clearly, otherwise I will not be able to follow your speech. When refuting opposing points, go in order and tell me which refutations are for each point. Tagline your advantages/disadvantages so that I can flow them properly.
You're welcome to use parli jargon, but make sure you explain what each term means (just a quick sentence so I know what you're doing).
Speak at a reasonable speed (no spreading), otherwise I won't be able to write everything down. Try your best to fill up the entire time you have. Time yourselves and don't go more than 15 seconds over the limit.
Some other notes:
- Respect everyone in the round and take the debate seriously
- Write the motion and your names (on a whiteboard/blackboard) before the debate begins
- Aff should sit to my left
Rozie MA Paradigm
Rob MacCoun Paradigm
I am a parent who has been judging for several years. Please speak at an ordinary, conversational rate, track your own time, and be sure to tell me your name the first time you speak. I usually don't give feedback in person, but I try to provide detailed written comments.
Balakrishna Manthapuri Paradigm
Varun Menon Paradigm
I have been debating for around 6 years through high-school at various national and international competitions, mostly in the WSDC format, and was a member of the UAE National team for the 2018 World School's Debating Championship in Croatia. Consequently, I have judged my fair share of debates, although this will be my first time judging American Parliamentary style debate. I am now affiliated with UC Berkeley through the Berkeley Debate Society.
I look primarily for clarity of argumentation and favour coherent structure and prudent strategy over stylistic prowess in support of argumentation. I have no preferred speaking styles per se. Any cadence that lends clarity to exposition will be appropriate- please try not to spread (while this is not a hard and fast rule, it will be significantly easier for me to weigh the merits of your argumentation if presented at a modest pace). Likewise, I believe that a few well explicated arguments are superior to a fusillade of incisive but superficially analysed theses.
Your assigned position on the motion will NOT hinder your chances of winning whatsoever. I will vote in favour of the team on the 'morally objectionable' side of the motion if they present a stronger case. In fact, I will favour strategies that take well justified hardline stances on an issue, over those that attempt to tread carefully and compromise on key principles for the sake of political correctness or appealing to the status quo.
Brad Mills Paradigm
As a parent judge, new to debate, my goal is to take copious notes, refer back to them and look for tipping points. In general, among the debates I have judged, I have found that most teams are comparable and the decision is often close. I believe the mere fact that you are at a debate tournament means both teams are already winners. So, regardless of my decision, please know that the decision is not intended to declare a loser. Instead, you all have won and one team, in my lay opinion won slightly more
Preeti Morgaonkar Paradigm
Zach Moss Paradigm
tl;dr: Don't be conditional, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice
Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to email@example.com
Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS
I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.
If you do not take a question in the first speech on your side and the other team requests a question I will give you 26 speaks or the equivalent.
Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals.
I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.
With that said, I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues of the resolution are and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative will attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means impact analysis and warrant comparison is critical in the rebuttals, your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation.
Impact calculus is the most important thing you can do once the card reading section of the debate is over. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 28, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below that for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?
I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.
Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.
Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.
To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.
Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).
Sarita Nori Paradigm
I am a judge who values rational, logical arguments, clear evidence and critical thinking. I will try to keep my decision purely based on statements from both sides, however, I have a hard time evaluating points that are factually incorrect
Kritiks: Familiar with Ks.
Speed: You can go above conversational speed it will be pretty clear if I cant flow.
Theory: I don't like theory debates, and find myself intervening more than I have to. If there is genuine abuse, and you win the shell, I will vote on it. Please explain it to me well and in a understandable way. Im more open to Topicality but make sure you explain why its a voting issue, especially true in Parli where there are no stock issues.
POI: Please take at least 1-2 POI's per speech.
POO: I will protect against blatantly new arguments in the LOR and PMR but if its close, I expect you to call it and explain to me what is new.
Tag Teaming: Tag Teaming a couple of sentences or a really important point is fine, but don't let it get to excessive
Sean O'Brien Paradigm
First off, sorry that this paradigm is so sparse -- I will work on improving it in the future, but if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me.
I'm a former PF debater (2018 TOC) and a current member of the Debate Society of Berkeley. I am personally okay with any amount of speed, but you should not spread unless the other team does as well -- I have no ideological issue with spreading, but it harms the quality of debate if the other team cannot understand your arguments.
I will be tabula rasa, so any arguments that aren't discriminatory are fair game, but please make sure they're warranted. The only time that I will use my own discretion in deciding a round will be if neither side weighs effectively -- in that case, my bias is toward utilitarianism.
Again, this paradigm is far from comprehensive, so please ask me any questions that you have before the round and I'll be happy to answer them.
Noah Oppenheimer Paradigm
Background: I'm a freshman at UC Berkeley, intending to major in Business Administration. I did Congress, Parli, Extemp, Impromptu and a little LD in high school.
Parli: I will try to be a flow judge. Talk as fast as you want as long as I can understand you. I am ok with Ks/Theory/etc. but they have to have an actually topical reason you should win the round. I value teams that weigh/summarize the arguments made in the round in rebuttal speeches.
Congress: I'd say (very roughly) I care 60% about arguments, 40% about speaking style and decorum. At the end of the day, both have to be good for you to get a high rank in the round. I highly value clash, as well as pointed questions that really challenge the speaker. It's ok if one of your speeches is early in the cycle and doesn't have clash, but if both lack it then it's a huge red flag.
Isabel Penman Paradigm
I am a freshman at UC Berkeley, and being in the Berkeley Debate Society is my first experience with debate.
If you are running any debate technicality (ie topicality), please clearly explain it and its impacts on the round. Mild speed is fine, however please do not spread, as I would like to hear everything that you have to say. I will take notes, but please explain the flow, especially while trying to drop opponents arguments. Impacts are important to me so be sure to clearly link all of your arguments to the weighing mechanism.
If you're disorganized or disrespectful you will lose speaker points. If you're ableist, racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. you will lose the round. Also, make sure to issue a warrant and an implication with your claims when making an argument; I will not give points for just claims.
Josh Peterson Paradigm
Please avoid jargon and do not spread.
Emma Polhemus Paradigm
UC Berkeley '20
Teach me something new. Keep your arguments and speaking style simple.
Hamza Qadeer Paradigm
I'm mostly flow, but I'm rusty on the very jargon-y bits of debate. I'm familiar with Ks/theory/some philosophy arguments and very open to them - I'll vote for anything as long as I can follow it and it's warranted well. I'm fine with speeds considerably faster than conversational speed, but I'll probably miss some arguments if you full-on spread. You might want to read the very last point.
I did debate for 3.5 years in high school (two years of LD and a year and a half of parli), but I've been out of the game for two years now.
I'll try my best to be completely tabula rasa, but I don't think it's possible to treat debate with 100% objectivity. I won't bring any of my own beliefs, opinions, or bits of knowledge into the round (I'll believe Unicornifornia is the 51st state if you tell me to), but I will use my own judgment to an extent when evaluating arguments.
These are the steps I usually follow when trying to make a decision. Walking me through these steps will make it much easier for me to vote for you:
1) Determine the framework under which I should be looking for offense. This could be net benefits in a case debate, theory standards, K framework, or LD-style philosophical arguments (which imo could be utilized pretty effectively in parli actually.) If multiple of these are operating at the same time, I'll look for offense on several different layers.
2) Determine relevant impacts under the framework. If you weigh impacts and assess link chains in your last speech, that'll make my job much much easier. Absent those kind of arguments, I'll generally employ my own judgment to compare the likelihood of various link stories and the magnitude of various impacts. In this calculus I'll consider turns and defensive arguments made throughout the round as well.
I think of debate as a chess-match between teams. Along those lines,
1) I'm not a huge fan of performative Ks / arguments that view debate as a platform for social justice, although I'll vote for them if they're done convincingly. I'm really, really not a fan of arguments that hinge on your own identity as part of some minority group.
2) On the other hand, I'm all for "troll"-y, somewhat abusive arguments. Abusive framework arguments, frivolous theory, and narrowly-worded plans/cps are all fine by me.
These are defaults that I employ when trying to evaluate arguments. All of these can be easily overrided if you give a warrant.
1) I will generally prioritize analytical arguments over empirics if they seem "fluffy" to me. Numbers are great, but if your only defense to an argument is a randomly-sourced statistic that's not very well-warranted, I won't weigh it heavily.
2) If you and the other team disagree over a fact, I will use my own judgment / prior knowledge to determine the truth.
a. I view theory on an offense-defense paradigm like all other arguments. A shell is offense. A counter-interp can be defense to that shell, or it could be offense of its own. There can be blocks/turns on shells like there are on any other argument.
b. Along those lines, I think theory is an RVI (reverse-voting issue) if you're losing offense on your own shell (i.e. the other team successfully turns your shell. RVIs on terminal defense (like we-meets) are harder to buy but I'm open to arguments for those as well.
a. I'm familiar with common Ks, but you'll want to give pretty clear warrants if you're reading something more complicated than that.
b. I have a low threshold for poorly explained frameworks and weak alts.
You can definitely go quite a bit faster than conversation pace, but I'm not great at flowing a full-on spread. This *usually* isn't a huge issue in parli rounds but I'll yell "slow" or "clear" if I have to.
6) Miscellaneous defaults:
a. K comes before theory.
b. Fairness > education
c. Probability > magnitude for impacts
d. Perms are a test of competition
e. I'll try my best to protect the flow during final speeches, but I'm not perfect at it, and you POOing could help me out there.
1) Taking POIs is generally a good idea. If you're reading something super dense and you refuse to take any questions, I'll dock your speaks significantly.
2) Make clear/well-organized arguments. Grouping things together for organization is great.
3) Strategically kicking arguments is great.
4) Being sassy is great. Being overly rude/aggressive is not.
5) I'll give you a 30 if you give all your speeches in a British accent (and you're not actually British.)
Michael Richards Paradigm
Hi, I'm Michael!
I am a completely lay (but not lame) judge, but I have a basic understanding of parli debate.
1. I weigh your arguments on how persuasive you are. Throwing in debate jargon will not win you any points with me (I won't understand it anyway).
2. You MAY run theory if your opponent is being clearly abusive in the round. Please EXPLAIN the theory shell clearly to me and describe what each aspect means along with why the team is clearly pushing you out of the debate space. DON'T waste my time on frivolous theory.
3. I am open to Kritiks and other non-traditional arguments, but you must make it clear to me that your argument is relevant to the topic
4. Please TALK SLOWLY and ENUNCIATE. I cannot think and write very quickly at the same time.
5. I will disclose if it is permissible at the tournament.
6. Use REAL warrants. I know a lot about politics and current events, so you have been warned.
7. I appreciate respectful and polite opponents. Please DO NOT be condescending.
8. If you raise P.O.I. make sure it is clarifying the argument, not just being a smart a*s.
9. DON'T STRESS! Debate is a fun activity and I enjoy judging a lively round with a lot of clash. It's about LEARNING not winning!
Amit Sagar Paradigm
I am a member of the Debate Society of Berkeley and am experienced in American Parliamentary, British Parliamentary, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Extemporaneous Speaking. I believe that the best debaters are not those who can recite the most facts to me, but the those who can use facts in logical argumentation throughout the debate. Effective and systematic clash with an opponent's arguments are important. Throughout the debate, teams must treat each other with respect and ad hominem arguments should not be made. If one team makes a round unfair, the other team must prove to me why this is so. Personally, I have no major political biases and I am not a huge fan of spreading but I understand if you have to do it.
Mehul Shah Paradigm
Sameh Shaikh Paradigm
Did debate in high school.
Talking fast is fine, but I am not a fan of spreading. I am also not too comfortable with kritiks/theory but am open them. Just make sure to explain it really well if you choose to run it.
Tabula Rasa. Assume I know nothing about the topic.
Asking/Taking POIs will help your speaks. Also, please signpost your speeches and I am also cool with offtime roadmaps.
Finally, debate is an educational space, so treat each other with respect.
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
Vishal Singhania Paradigm
I am second year judging parliamentary type debates. I judge the debate outcome purely based on what is presented to me. I value debating with solid arguments and impact analysis instead of just buzzwords and technicality/process. The most important for me is that debaters bring their passion, persuasiveness and confidence to the table. To get my full attention and to help me judge the debate with clarity, please layout your plan, clearly articulate your points and speak with reasonable speed. For me a great speech has great organization and clarity of thoughts.
Violet Sinnarkar Paradigm
Evergreen Valley High School '16
UC Berkeley '20
NPDI/TOC Update: I wrote this paradigm for LD, but the general concept stands. I competed in parli sporadically throughout my junior and senior year, and qualified to TOC.
I will vote for whatever you present a compelling argument for. I default to an offense/defense paradigm, and ethical confidence on the framework level. I presume that all levels of the debate, e.g. theory, kritiks, contentions, etc. are equally important unless you argue otherwise. I flow cross-ex answers. To quote Christian Tarsney, my favorite debates are (1) philosophical debates focused on normative framework, (2) empirical debates with lots of weighing and evidence comparison, (3) just plain stock debates, (4) "critical" debates revolving around incoherent non-arguments from obscurantist pseudo-philosophers, and (5) theory debates, in that order.
Weigh everything. I have a high threshold for extensions (i.e. you must re-explain the claim, impact, and warrant). You must explain why you win an argument and why it's a voting issue even if your opponent drops it.
Theory must include all the elements of a structured shell. You don't have to say "A is the..., B is the..." but you must mention an interpretation, violation, standard, and voter sometime in order for me to vote on the argument. I default to dropping the argument and competing interpretations on the theory debate.
Be creative! I will act as if I have no knowledge of the authors or literature you reference outside of what you have told me.
Feel free to ask any questions before or after the round. You can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Maggie Sun Paradigm
Please clearly articulate your arguments so I can understand them. Please do not spread or run Ks.
Ramakrishnan Thirumalai Paradigm
Anthony Waitz Paradigm
- Speak loudly and clearly. Avoid spreading.
- A few strong points are better than many weak ones.
- Logical arguments are better than bickering about technicalities.
Jiang Wang Paradigm
Di Wu Paradigm
I am a parent judge this means that I am very lay. Please speak clearly and slowly. No spreading. Be sure to signpost so I can flow the round better. I don't know too much about high school debate so please walk me through your points. When I weigh, I weigh not only on the quality of the evidence but also why it matters so be sure to show me why your evidence matters in the round.
No Theory and/or Kritiks. I do not know what they are and I will vote you down if you run them
Jennifer Wu Paradigm
1. Speakers introduce themselves first
2. more reasoning with evidence
3. Speak clearly and clarify the terminologies and definitions as necessary
Brendan Wu Paradigm
Over half of my life has been dedicated to debate, public speaking, and leadership. I have four years of total forensics experience competing for my junior high school and The Brooks Institute. I competed and won awards at multiple tournaments in all forms of forensics (policy, Lincoln Douglas, public forum, parliamentary, congress, and MSPDP). In the seventh grade, I was a semifinalist at my first debate tournament (Harker Speech and Debate Invitational), won 1st place at the Toastmasters Regional Speech Competition, and won 15th place at the MSPDP Middle School nationals at Claremont McKenna. In the eighth grade, I won 1st place at the James Logan Invitational for Lincoln Douglas and 3rd place at the Stanford National Speech and Debate Invitational for congressional debate. After years of forensics, I would go on to compete in Model United Nations (MUN) for five years. I would win 2nd place at the MIT International MUN Debate Competition, 2nd Place at the Yale Model Government International High School Debate Competition in Budapest, Hungary, and three consecutive first place finishes (9th, 10th, and 11th grade) in the Harvard Model Congress International Debate Competition. I competed in MUN for the League of Creative Minds Debate Academy at Stanford University. I am currently a vice-chairman of BMUN (Berkeley Model United Nations).
I am currently a debater for Berkeley. I am able to judge rounds with debaters who speak quickly or slowly, but I will emphasize that speed and quantity of arguments are not as valuable as a slow, coherent, and efficient speech.
Xinyue Yang Paradigm
I have experience in public forum debate in high school. I prefer a slower debate because it allows for a more clear and understandable style of speaking and debating.
Derek Yegian Paradigm
I'm a parent judge who:
a) is new to the debate world but is trying to learn.
b) will not understand theory arguments, spreading, or Kritiks.
c) prefers evidence oriented arguments based on data.