Hi,

My name is Milan Amritraj and I'm writing this paradigm specifically for the 2022 NPDL TOC.

By way of Parli experience, I was a 2 time California state semi-finalist while competing for Campbell Hall. To the extent that World Schools Debate is similar to parli, I was also a two year member of NSDA's Team USA and captained the team during my senior year of high school. For further general background, I competed in LD, Congress and a variety of extemporaneous speech events. I've also served as assistant coach of the Campbell Hall team since graduating high school in 2016.

My paradigm is not particularly complicated, and I really don't think it should be for Parli debate. This text is not exhaustive, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts if you'd like specific clarification. Below are the most important points.

I'm pretty open to any arguments, theory and K's included, so feel free to run whatever you'd like so long as its well articulated. That being said, I heavily value weighing and crystallization in the rebuttal speeches, so please do a good amount of work to help clarify how you think I should be weighing these different arguments. Otherwise you run the risk of me having to enter the debate to resolve any ambiguities.

Speed shouldn't be an issue. Clarity, however, might very well be. I'll call out clear if theres an issue, but please try to avoid making that happen.

Finally, please avoid any funny business with prep or evidence if those sorts of things come up in round. I have a zero tolerance policy for foul play.

I have 4 years of experience judging and debating in high school debate (Lincoln Douglas, World School debate, and British Parliamentary Style) and college debate (British Parliamentary Debate).Racism, sexism, classism, and bigotry in general are never tolerated in round or in argumentation. For virtual, please stay in the camera frame. It is best if your hands are always in the frame as well; otherwise, gestures seem extreme when your hands suddenly enter the frame. When I judge a round, I focus mainly on whether or not you have a clear structure. Structure to me means whether or not you fully flesh out your examples to make them impactful. The biggest thing I look for is your explanation - you need to explain things in a way that makes it easy to understand without sounding condescending. Your examples and explanation should help me understand your ideas or else they do not serve a purpose in terms of persuasion. Lastly, speaker points are based on who creates the most convincing arguments not who are necessarily right or wrong in the real world .

I prefer quality of arguments over quantity of arguments. Talking fast and throwing information doesn't move me.

I need real justification and concrete evidence behind your arguments. I will not take assumptions or unjustified extrapolations.

I stress again, anything you put out, in a POI, in a rebuttal, in an emotional argument, etc.

My experience is in MSPDP/HSPDP, a parliamentary-style format sponsored by Claremont McKenna College.

I am a current member of the Debate Society of Berkeley, which primarily competes in BP tournaments.

I am a big believer in not incorporating any of my own personal knowledge into a debate besides what is safely considered common knowledge. Similarly, none of my personal opinions will make it into the debate room.

As far as strategy, I encourage debaters to consider the exact wording of the topic. Ex: "X does more good than Y" and "X does more good than harm" have very different burdens.

Please respect protected time and do not be disruptive to the speaker (pass notes instead of whispering).

Other than that, I encourage a fair and fun round!

I am currently a third year law student, I am taking the California Bar Exam this summer, and I have a B.A. in Philosophy with a minor in Sociology. I think social justice is a serious issue, especially in our country today. If you can make an argument related to it I’ll be more likely to vote for you. I have never competed in debate myself, I have judged at Stanford a handful of times, and I am not a coach. I am taking notes on an Excel sheet. If you want me to open different tabs for sections of the debate I am happy to do that but you need to tell me what they are and when to shift.

Speaker points:

Respect and professionalism are key in debate and in life. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters will be punished on speaker points for being rude or abusive. Toxic masculinity, racism, and microaggressions are real and I take them very seriously. My job is to oversee this round as well as protect everyone participating. That said, I have the right to stop the round as I see fit. 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.

Theory:

I do not have experience evaluating debate theory, but as far as I understand, it is similar to legal statutory interpretation. So, as long as you’re clear I’m happy to hear your arguments.

Kritiques:

Here are the family of things I’m familiar with: gender theory, Marxism, critical race theory, and other moral philosophical theories. That said, I’ve never evaluated these in a debate before, but I’m more than happy to be walked through it by debaters.

Case:

I much prefer good case debate with solid warrants. There is no verifiable evidence in Parli but please let’s now abuse that. I will gut check on obviously false stuff but don’t expect me to know the exact percentage of a random subsidy. The Affirmative is not required to stick with two advantages. I’m fine with perception debates. Terminalized impacts matter.

CP/Permutations:

Permutations are fine, but keep in mind that my legal education shapes how I approach them. That is, I’m likely to be very literal about the question of mutual exclusivity. Counterplans should be real. It will be hard to get me to say that everyone should get a farm subsidy and a cookie is enough to vote. Give me something real to distinguish the CP from the plan.

POI:

Teams are free to either (1) turn their camera on and say out loud “POI” to audibly indicate to the speaker that they want to be recognized, or (2) they can be put in the chat and partners of the speaker can reply to those/tag team. THIS DOES NOT MEAN pasting large blocks of text in the chat box. It should be brief. No articles from news sources, no long wordy answers. If you engage in any of these behaviors you’ll get one warning. After that, I will drop you.

Speed:

I am not comfortable with a high speed debate. Please do not spread or move quickly, slightly above conversational speed is fine.

Updated Jan 31st, 2020 for Stanford

Tldr: I vote on the flow. Read whatever you want as long as its inclusive. Speed should be fine. Debate is a game so use the best strategy you can. I love theory & cps and am okay with kritiks. I don’t protect so call POOs. Be nice. Don’t shake my hand. Ask me any specific questions before the round starts.

About:

-Pronouns: she/her/hers

-I competed for Ashland High School for 4 years mainly in Parli (went to ToC my Junior and Senior year). Most of my experience was in lay debate but I prefer flow/ think it’s more fun. You do you though.

-Freshman in college so this will be my first time judging/ not debating at Stanford : )

General:

-I vote based on the flow but don’t want to do any work for you. Please weigh, collapse, extend, and be organized.

-Read whatever arguments you want to as long as their not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

-Debate is a game so I appreciate good, creative strategies/arguments

-I default to net benefits. If you’re using other framework please explain and justify it.

-I don’t accept shadow extensions so if something is read in the PMC it needs to be extended by the MG for the PMR to leverage it. Same with the neg.

-I do not protect against new arguments so please call Point of Orders.

-Please accept at least one question in every speech. I will vote on POI theory if it is run well.

-Tag teaming is fine but I will only flow the words from the speaker’s mouth.

-Please read interps/ texts twice. I will be very happy if you give me and your opponents a copy of the text.

Speed:

-I am fairly comfortable with speed as long as you’re clear.

-If needed I will call slow once and clear twice per speech if I can’t understand you. After that I will just put my pen down.

Case:

-I prefer AD/DA structure with uniqueness, links, impacts.

-The more specific and warranted the better.

-I don’t like voting on blippy arguments or arguments without clear impacts. If you want me to vote on a conceded argument please clearly explain its relevance/impacts.

Theory:

-One of my favorite parts of the debate as a debater. That being said, not a fan of frivolous theory just to run it and it is not likely to win you the round.

-I’m fine with anything i.e. POI theory, meta theory, 30 speaks (if extended) etc. just please don’t use it to purposely skew your opponents out of the round

-Please have all parts of the shell if you’re reading theory with clear impacts and underview.

-I default to competing interps.

-I default to drop the argument unless you specify otherwise.

-I will not vote on just a conceded standard unless it is well articulated and extended.

-Please tell me theory is a-priori so I can weigh it above case and articulate where it should be weighed if Kritiks are in the round.

CPs:

-Please use CPs to your advantage! I love them

-I’m fine with anything i.e. condo or PICs as long as you can win the theory debate

-Perms are a test of competition not an advocacy unless I am told otherwise

-If your opponents run a CP please make the debate better be fully responding it it i.e. solvency deficits, perms, disadvantages to the CP, etc.

Kritiks:

-I don’t have much experience with Kritiks but I’m fine if you run them just please be organized & clear

-I’m likely not familiar with your lit base unless it’s cap and I can’t vote on things I don’t understand so please explain

-Don’t run a K unless you have solid links

-Please tell me where to weigh it if theory is also in the round

-Not a fan of K Affs but the debate space is yours so if you run it, do it well

Be inclusive:

-Be nice!

-Please address your opponents by “my opponent” unless you know their pronouns.

-Let me know at the beginning of the debate if there’s something you need/want that can make the space more accessible for you i.e. sitting instead of standing during speeches.

-If you’re reading sensitive material please include a trigger warning in advance, i.e. before the round or before your speech.

If you have any questions you can email me at hdoyle23@cmc.edu, FB message me or ask me before the round.

Parli

- Don't generally like counterplans, unless there are serious advantages to them. Timeframe counterplans, for example, must be seriously warranted to overcome the diminishment of educational value.

- Do not run multiple advocacies - such as disadvantage to plan WITH a counterplan (unless the CP solves the disad, in which case it's an advantage to CP).

- In case you didn't gather, I am not a fan of policy-style debate conventions in the parliamentary format. I will always pref solid case args over theory or "game-y" debate strat.

- Debate the resolution, clash via argumentation and POIs. POIs very important so that clash points can be explored.

- If you abusively POO, I will down you on poor sportsmanship and diminishment of educational value.

- debate value, policy, and fact rounds appropriately. For example, don't try to argue a fact or value resolution based on net benefits, etc. etc. etc. Fact rounds are "preponderance of evidence" and value rounds must identify a paramount value. I will down you for diminishing educational value of parli by co-opting everything to policy format.

LD - I don't currently coach LD, but did so in the traditional style some years back. Framework is important and the criterion needs to function as a criterion to the value. Like, a measurable, functioning criterion. - My heart sinks when competitors turn LD into a policy round and run net benefits or some other non-value; net benefits, for example, is just an ill-defined placeholder for any number of values within a pragmatic/consequentialist framework. - P.S. Morality is not a value. I see it run all the time to my consternation. Morality denotes no actual value... it rather describes a system of principles to describe right and wrong - it is up to you to actually define those principles. There are many types of morality as it is relative to cultural context: Christian morality, prison morality, etc. etc. etc.

- I don't know much about circuit LD but will always pref traditional debating styles (resolutional analysis, evidence, analysis, clash, weighing) over esoteric theory. I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Congress

Not much new here: I look for incisive, insightful analysis of relevant issues. Quality of research matters.

In general, less is more: I'd rather a competitor focus in a single issue and really zero in on the implications/weighing of that rather than superficial coverage of multiple issues.

Stand straight, polished appearance, good projection and vocal nuance. These things are still relevant in a rhetorically-driven debate style such as Congressional Debate.

PF

I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.

Speech Requirements:

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)

- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")

- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus

Things that are important for me:

- Signposting

- Clarity

- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)

I do not want you to:

- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document

- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction

- be rude/condescending/curt in CX

I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

I am a parent judge and a lawyer. I primarily judge parliamentary debate but have judged public forum and LD a few times. As a parent/lay judge, I am not trained or well-versed in the technical rules/strategies for parliamentary debate (or any other format for that matter). Moreover, as a lawyer, I present and evaluate arguments for a living and in the real world where "kritiks" "theory" and spreading are typically not effective means to persuade. This means I value logical, substantive arguments about the underlying case/resolution over technical gamesmanship, jargon, and speed.

I also value "sportsmanship" -- which means debaters who are rude, disrespectful, arrogant, condescending, disruptive etc. toward their opponent(s) both during and before/after rounds will have a very difficult time earning my support.

September 2020: This is my first time judging! Please be patient with me. Good luck to you all!

Hello Eager Debaters,

Even though I have lay judged for about 7+ years, please continue to treat me as a lay judge. Which means:

a. Don't assume - tell me everything about the process, structure, framework, weighing mechanism - all the good stuff you'll tell a lay judge

b. Each argument for me will have almost equal weightage unless there's a glaringly obvious difference in weightage - so make sure you are strengthening / countering all contentions produced

c. It's your responsibility to watch each others' time, speech sequence etc. - I'm focusing all my energy on the debate

d. I will leave as much of my opinion baggage outside the door as humanly possible. Don't make assumptions one way or the other that certain types of arguments will appeal any more or less to me because of who I am or appear to be

e. Be nice, have fun, keep learning! :-)

Currently I am affiliated with UC Berkeley through the Debate Society of Berkeley. I am most familiar with BP and APDA. When judging, I will as objective as possible. I look for well structured reasoning and logical arguments. I prefer when debaters outline their contentions. I tend to weigh analysis over evidence and value arguments over style.

I have 1 year Congress debate experience from high school and have judged college debate last year.

I like thorough, structured arguments that are followed through. This means that I don't just want to see you blast through a bunch of warrants and move on. Please explain why what you're arguing matters, even if it's seemingly trivial and obvious.

If a point goes unaddressed, I will usually reward whoever brought it up, unless it's utterly irrelevant.

I've judged parli for several years now.

Please enunciate and speak slower. Especially with debates online, sometimes I struggle to hear speeches properly when someone is talking fast.

Make sure you have logical arguments with clear reasoning that I can flow.

Do not try to run theory or kritiks.

I encourage POIs

I'm a member of the Debate Society of Berkeley. I will be flowing throughout the round, so I appreciate signposting. Please don't spread. I want to see clash throughout the round, and please try to take POIs.

I will judge both teams by how effectively they refute the other teams points. I will be looking at argument structure and reasoning of each team to allocate points. Avoid spreading, focus on speaking clearly and having organized thoughts.

Hello speakers, my name is Dimple. My experience with speech/debate began in 2020. I have remained active in the community as a speech and debate judge since then.

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

I do not like speaker's talking over each other during cross-examination. Please be respectful to your opponent. The winner of the round will be the speaker who made the best arguments, not the most aggressive or loudest. Also, please time yourselves. I will be taking time and notify you when time is up, but timing yourself is a great skill as you can determine how much time you have left.

Be mindful of the time, if your time is up. I will allow you to finish your last sentence but do not continue. All in all, I am excited to meet you all. I study delivery, as critical thinking is necessary throughout the round. Remember to be clear and state uniqueness, solvency, and impact of the policy/resolution. Take a deep breathe and show me all the hard work you have put in.

Please don't speak too fast.

Time yourselves.

I don't disclose immediately after the round. All feedback will be given in the RFD after the rounds.

livingston high school '20 (4 years PF, debated @ TOC + Nats) | university of california, berkeley '24

ishan.saxena@berkeley.edu for the email chain

warrants matter (in all speeches would be ideal)

comparatively weigh

debate however you want

be a good person

I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging.

Few things that influence my judging :

1) Provide reasoning for your claims and support them with evidence.

2) I like to see how effectively the team was able to present the arguments and tackle each point presented by the opposing team.

3) Most IMPORTANT, Speak clearly and slowly, if you are too fast, no matter how good your arguments are, if I cannot follow, I cannot award points.

Hey guys, my name is Chris Ying (he/him). A little bit of background of myself (if you don't care you can just scroll down to the section titled paradigm): I competed all four years while I was at Lowell High School, exclusively in Parliamentary debate. I really care about this activity, and I think debate is one of the best ways to learn more about the world and how to empathize with others. I will say that because Lowell was a more traditional form of parli, I'm not very friendly to the more technical side of debate. To me, not only is it incredibly hard to listen to, I don't think it's very effective for how people in the real-world communicate with each other. That being said, here's the part you actually care about.

Paradigm

1) I judge based off two things: the actual content of your argument (2) and how you argued it (3).

2) I judge the content of your arguments by its merits. I will not give you the win based on a technicality. For example, if your opponents are like 1-2 minutes late, I won't simply put down a ballot for you. I try to be as tabula raza as possible, but if you tell me something that I know is just straight-up false I am fairly inclined to side with whatever response your opponents give. Unless your opponents also give me a really bad response which is also false in which case see number 3.

3) I like clear arguments with each point clearly labeled and taglined. Story-like introductions are fantastic. Speaking-style and clarity is extremely important to me. I want to see good presentation. Vary your speed, vary your tone, vary your volume. That being said, do not spread. If you spread, I will automatically mark you down in terms of speaker points. Speaking quickly is fine, but if you see me just stop writing that means you're going too fast and I'm not flowing anything you're saying.

4) I really do not like technical debate. This includes Ks, tshells, presumption arguments, etc. In addition, please do not use a bunch of acronyms for technical debate terms. I was taught debate in a pretty traditional parli setting (see my introduction) so I will not know what you're saying. The basic rule of thumb is: if you're just talking to some relatively well-read person on the street who has never done formal debate before, can they understand you? If they can't, then I probably can't either.

5) Humor is great. If you can make me laugh, that will go in your favor. Now, that doesn't mean that you can win the round just by making me laugh, but it does make you a lot more likable. Pop-culture references are a good starting point.

6) Please be kind and respectful. Occasional digs that are meant to tease your opponent are fine, but please keep it within reason. Please don't make me disqualify you just because you said something incredibly stupid.

Good luck! You're going to do great.

He/Him - UC Berkeley 24

PF Paradigm (I haven't debated much APDA yet, so I'm still figuring out how to navigate it. That said, I'm the most reliable judging rounds under a utilitarian lens because that was the PF standard -- anything else will probably require more explanation for me to vote on. Other than that, I think most of the things in my PF paradigm follow closely in the way I adjudicate APDA rounds as well.)

ahahahaha

ok so...

200 wpm is best speed where i can flow majority of what is said

weigh weigh weigh PLEASE WEIGH

explain the logic/warrant behind things (so they make sense)

extend your argument each speech if you want me to vote on it

if you're first summary, you don't need to extend defense unless they frontline it.

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline turns or else they are considered dropped.

i like clarity of impact weighing... probability is a bit more sus but if you argue it well I'll vote on it

also judging isnt as fun as debating so sometimes i wont be like 100% in it, so if you think im flow, debate flay ya dig?

as for progressive arguments -- theory and kritiks especially -- I'm not too comfortable with them so please don't trust me to make the right decision

And here is a link to my ex-partners paradigm; he and I have very similar debate ideologies so anything I didnt cover here I'll likely defer to what is written on his.

http://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=Carter&search_last=Tegen