Cal Parli Invitational
2019 — Berkeley, CA/US
Tatianna Alonso Paradigm
College Park High School - Class of 2016
University of California - Class of 2021
I have no experience with judging but I personally would like to watch and judge philosophical debates focused on normative debate.
Hazel An Paradigm
Ajinderjit Bains Paradigm
Ani Banerjee Paradigm
Previous Experience: 4 years of parli, both lay and flow, for Gunn High School (Palo Alto). I graduated in May 2019.
General Etiquette: Don't shake my hand. Don't linger after the round. All feedback will be given in the ballot.
Don't whisper loudly to each other while your opponents are speaking -- generally, be as quiet as possible while someone else is speaking.
On Speaking: Goes without saying, but no bigotry. If you face a microaggression in the round, please call your opponent out on it -- I will penalize them if it continues.
I don't really care for speaker points and I think they're a bit arbitrary. Therefore, here's my arbitrary rule spelled out: You all start out at 27.5 speaker points and gain 1 point for every good pun you make. I define "good."
Do not spread your opponents out of the round, and clarify all terms and jargon you are asked to clarify. Conversely, you must ask your opponents to slow down or clarify if you feel the need.
You may tag team, but I will only flow what the speaker says.
POIs may be taken at the end of the speech, but I will ask that if you say "I will take your POI at the end," you should waive your final minute of protected time.
POOs must be called for it to be acknowledged and not flowed. Please call POOs on shadow extensions -- I will take them into account. I judge the validity of the POO based on my own flow. (Do not argue with whoever called the POO -- I promise you I do my due diligence and will check to see if it is a new argument. Just continue with your speech.)
On Argumentation: I will not warrant, impact, or weigh for you. It doesn't matter if you managed to impact out to nuclear war and your opponents only impacted out to a 0.1% loss in GDP; If your opponents weighed those impacts and you didn't, I will probably vote for your opponents.
I will always do my best to be a tabula rasa judge (though do be aware that I am human and therefore certain arguments may be a stretch to me).
It's your job to explain the science, technology, history, or concepts that relate to your argument. If you're talking about carbon capture technology in a climate change round, you better explain like I'm 5. I will only vote on facts introduced in the round and will try my best not to intervene or be biased based on my own outside knowledge.
The quality of evidence will almost never be a deciding factor in the round -- this is Parli. Focus on argumentation and logic. (Important caveat: if you're going to make something up, don't insult my intelligence.)
On Theory and Ks: If you invoke theory, I'm going to stop being a tabula rasa judge and I will judge your team harshly if you invoke it frivolously.
For Ks, the same rules apply. I'm pretty harsh about what I think justifies a non-case debate, so these options should be a last resort. I am open to them if I genuinely believe there has been harm done by the end of the K. Please do not use Ks as a means to just "surprise" your opponents.
Drew Camens Paradigm
Qingwen Cheng Paradigm
Parmita Das Paradigm
Bobbie Dowling Paradigm
I am a parent judge, and have judged at several tournaments across 2+ years. Jargon and technical debate do not impress me, whereas plain talk does. I take notes throughout the round.
I decide based on who is most convincing and respectful of the art and sport.
Jennifer Feruch Paradigm
Binu George Paradigm
judged at Berkeley High tournament
Stefani Hartsell Paradigm
I'm a parent judge with about 1 year of judging experience. I'm a lay judge, but I have knowledge about most topic areas and will probably know if you're outright lying. I will try to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I don't believe that anyone can be fully Tabula Rasa. Don't shake my hand.
Case: I'm skeptical of link chains that sketchily lead to huge, improbable impacts. I understand, though, that this can be strategic for many debators. I will probably use some degree of reasonability in deciding if you access your impacts. This is the biggest frustration for me in judging: have better links. Do not lie to me, it's a bad norm for Parli and it's against CHSSA rules anyway. Strong uniqueness is very important to me, and you should cite an organization if you're reading quantitative data warrants. Be topical.
Speed: I can handle a clippier debate, but be reasonable. Think fast conversational speed at a max. If you go faster, I won't be able to take notes as effectively. If you're talking fast but aren't saying much substantive, I'll get annoyed.
Impact Weighing and Framing: Just tell me where to vote, make it easy. Also, COLLAPSE!
Perms: An immensely powerful tool for the Aff. I default to the perm as an advocacy, but I'd be open to a well-explained competition perm.
Counterplans: Do not run Plan Inclusive Counterplans, unless there's obviously no ground for you.
Theory: My daughter explained theory to me, and I could see it as a viable response to abuse. That said, I've never encountered theory before when judging. If it's presented to me, it would need to be well explained. Even then, I may not vote on it as an a priori issue. I'd probably weigh it against case, unless given a strong reason otherwise (as in, not a blippy a priori claim on voters).
Kritiks: I've never seen one run, and probably wouldn't vote on it if presented. Disads and Advantages using Kritikal lit would probably be more effective, if you really want to run it (change mindsets in the post-fiat world).
Speaks: I will try my best to rank your speaking fairly and without bias. I think that speaking convincingly is important for real-world applications, as much as I'd like presentation to not matter.
POO: I know what this is, no need to explain. One response from each team, I don't want to a hear a back-and forth. I don't protect the flow, so POO new arguments. Don't use POOs to try and throw the other team off, I'll get annoyed.
POI: These are pretty consistently abused. Unless it's an important clarification point that will further the education/clash of the debate, I don't really care if you don't take them. It's your choice.
Ben Hoz Paradigm
Andrea Hurley Paradigm
I am a parent judge and don't have past debate experience. I primarily judge Parliamentary debate.
I am not a huge fan of K's but if you really think it pertains to the debate, don't be afraid to run it as long as you are able to link it back to the debate at hand.
This applies to all forms of debate, not just Parliamentary. Probably my biggest preference is that you do not spread. It makes it more difficult for me to render the right decision as I want to be able to hear your arguments, but I can't when you speak so fast to the point where it is impossible to understand.
Phong Huynh Paradigm
Vivek Kamarshi Paradigm
Current college freshman. 4 years high school Parli debate experience, 3 years as team captain; my debate experience has been mostly lay. I will flow the round and do my best to vote for the team that has the largest/most-likely impacts as they relate to the round's value criterion.
ARGUMENTS: impacts are critical, tell me why your claim & impacts lead to the weighing criterion. Also, do my weighing for me: tell me that your impacts are more important than your opponents', and give me evidence as to why.
LAST SPEECHES: I do flow last speeches, and I don't protect against new content in the last speech. If you spot your opponent bringing up new content and think this is unfair, say "point of order." I will stop time and you can state why you think this is unfair. Your opponents will have an opportunity to respond, then state "start time" and continue their speech. I will not allow back-and-forth discussion between debaters in the point-of-order.
THEORY: I will vote on theory if I think there was abuse by your opponents and you’re able to justify a) that real abuse occurred, and b) that it harmed you / your ability to win the round. I don’t like friv T.
KRITIK: I’m not a huge fan of the kritik, if you feel you have to go for it make sure before that speech that your opponents are comfortable responding to it. I have a very limit base of K literature, so don't assume that I know what K you're going for and be prepared to explain how it works to me in-round. I will be receptive to arguments that Ks are abusive to non-flow debaters.
SPREADING: As I said, my experience has been somewhat lay so there is a definite upper limit to how fast I can listen/flow. If I can't flow at the rate you're spreading, I'll yell "CLEAR". If I've had to yell clear 3 times I will stop flowing. importantly: confirm with your opponents that they can flow at speed before you start a speech including spreading. If you do not do this and your opponents say you're spreading them out of the round, I will be receptive.
OBVIOUSLY: Dont be racist/sexist/.... you will get bad speaks and lose the round.
have a good debate!
Chetan Kamdar Paradigm
Amandeep Kaur Paradigm
Keri Klein Paradigm
I am a parent judge for parliamentary debate.
Please don't spread. I can't give credit for arguments that I can't flow. I appreciate clarity of argument and signposting. Please avoid jargon.
Omar Kudsi Paradigm
Sathish Kumar Bakthavatchalam Paradigm
Marty LaJeunesse Paradigm
No prior experience with judging, will need judge training.
Wuxiong Li Paradigm
Cheri Loustalet Paradigm
I am a parent judge with some limited experience judging. Please make arguments and weighing of impacts as clear as possible to make the decision as easy as possible. Explain to me how I should evaluate each impact in comparison to the other.
Please focus on the case arguments and do not run K's or frivolous theory. The only time that theory should be run is when there is clear abuse of the resolution. If this is the circumstance, please explain in the simplest terms possible how each part of the theory works. I will only vote regarding actual, not potential abuse. The abuse should be explained as to why the topicality was 100% necessary.
Laurel McGrane Paradigm
Sharmila Neel Paradigm
Pragyan Pandey Paradigm
Satyavrat Prabhune Paradigm
Chenchaiah Rangineni Paradigm
Lisa Rothrauff Paradigm
judged at Parli 1
Michael Schultz Paradigm
Varun Suresh Paradigm
Zaid Umar Paradigm
Did PF in high school. I'd say I was decent. I do BP at UC Berkeley now (c/o 2023).
1. Talking fast is fine but no spreading.
2. I am okay with theory (please don't make it frivolous) and kritik literature as long as you warrant, link, and impact it very well. I'd prefer you stick to the topic at hand, but if you're really passionate about your "alternative" argument then by all means run it. You'll just really need to explain to me what's going on or you'll lose me.
3. I'm 100% tabula rasa. Act as if I'm a blank slate on the topic.
4. Tech > truth
5. Crazy args are fine as long as they are explained well.
PUBLIC FORUM PREFS
1. Please don't frontline case in your second speech (hint, that's what summary is for!). That is such a waste of time. I'd rather have you give me a full 4 minute rebuttal.
2. I'd like a 50/50 split offense/defense in summary. Doesn't have to be *exact* but a general guideline to follow.
3. If you drop something in summary I won't consider it at all if you bring it up in FF.
4. In final focus I put my pen down for the most part. I want you to clearly and succinctly explain to me (i.e., give me numbered reasons) why I should vote for you. Weighing directly at the impact level is also super important here.
1. Asking/attempting AND answering POIs is a good way to get higher speaker points. Don't spam your opponents with POIs though. Just enough for me to know you are engaged in the debate.
2. I hate parli because of the longer speech times. Please keep me interested. Being "performative" is a good way to do that.
3. Tag teaming is fine, but you need to repeat what your partner says.
If you have any questions email me: email@example.com
Shirley Wu Paradigm
This is my first high school tournament, so I am new to everything. Please don't speak fast, I will be unable to write down all you say, and what I do not write down will probably not help you. Speak with clarity and do not use any jargon; if you do, explain what those words mean. Please explain EVERYTHING, so I understand what you are saying. Please provide well-developed arguments. I would be more impressed with two or three well-developed deep arguments over several superficial arguments. Make sure to be respectful. Thanks and have fun!