Update for NPDL-TOC 2024

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Introduction/Summary

Hello all! I hope this paradigm answers most of your questions, but please contact me at alex.abarca@yale.edu if you have any outstanding questions. I’m also happy to discuss debate in general. I’m a first-generation, low-income student and down to answer any questions about college!

I competed in NPDL-Parliamentary all four years in high school. I was a two-time NPDL TOC qualifier, a four-time state qualifier in IX (CHSSA), and a four-time national qualifier in IX (NSDA). I top spoke at the Jack Howe Long Beach Invitational and won the 2020 Stanford Invitational. In college, I was a member of the Yale Debate Association, served as tournament director for the 2022 Yale Invitational and Yale Osterweis Invitational, and judged both tournaments.

I have judged elimination rounds at NPDL-TOC 2021-2023 and the semifinal and final rounds in 2022. I have experience judging the West Coast Circuit and the NYPDL/East Coast Circuits.

I’m happy to judge either lay or tech rounds, but I see myself more as a traditional judge. I don’t like to think of debate as a game – we sometimes discuss heavy topics in rounds and articulate policies with theoretical real-world implications. Viewing debate as a game is unfair to our logic and skills, the people and situations we draw from when writing resolutions, and people who want to learn from this activity. Thankfully, theory usage as a strategy to win has begun to fall out of fashion in the community – I’m happy to judge theory debate when it’s well-warranted and called for. If you do it in an attempt to shut your opponent out of the round, I may vote for you, but don’t expect to speak above a 25.

TLDR of My Paradigm for Parliamentary Debate

I avoid speed and jargon unless you and your opponents agree on it (jargon such as turn/cross-apply/extend is great if both teams understand it!). I encourage the 1AR/1NR (PMR/LOR) to collapse functionally towards the most critical arguments and weigh (against both sides, even-ifs, and counterfactuals) using a variety of weighing styles (scope, magnitude, brink, etc.). In constructive speeches, connect your arguments to a definite weighing mechanism and the resolution. Be explicit in your definition and operationalization of terms (this will make your life easier when impacting arguments). As mentioned above, I am generally unreceptive to Kritiks or Theory unless they are well-warranted in the round and executed well and have some basis in either the resolution or an in-round fairness violation.

I encourage everyone to share their pronouns – although you are certainly not required to. Do not make harmful generalizations about groups of people in your argumentation. If your opponents argue with you on your rhetoric, I have a medium threshold for dropping you. If I vote for you, your speaks will suffer. Share content warnings with us before each speech where there is new content.

As a note for me: I have ADHD – please ignore my facial expressions and body gestures for the most part. If I stop flowing and give you a confused look, that’s a sign that you’ve lost me in terms of argumentation.

Specifics

How I Adjudicate

I look at the flow and see where the critical arguments in the round fall. From there, I consider which side won more of those critical arguments. I will vote as strictly on the flow as possible. In the case where everything is a wash, presumption flows to the opp unless there is a counterplan, in which case presumption flows gov.

In-Round Intervention

The act of having a paradigm means none of us are tabula rasa philosophically. However, I will not intervene in the round unless arguments or inaccuracies are called out. If something is factually wrong (especially in my field, Comparative Political Development/Representation Linkages), I have a low threshold for tossing an argument or fact out.

Argumentation

Have a clear framework, weighing mechanism or criterion, and have sound plan-text.

Use cohesive logic with well-structured link chains. Have strong and defined warrants coupled with transparent impact chains. If I hear, “This will improve the economy,” I will not be happy. In what way, in which sector, who will benefit from these improvements? This a gentle reminder that the more expansive the magnitude and severity of the impact, the tighter and more cohesive the link chain.

For refutation, please substantially interact with the argument. Consider the claim, warrant, link (internal/external), and impacts of the argument. I've been judging rounds recently where I keep using "ships passing in the night" in my RDF, and I'd rather not have to say that phrase again. Cloudy refutations mean I must intervene more in the flow, which is potentially bad for you.

In the rebuttal speeches, please have voting issues, explicit weighing, and collapse down to the most important arguments. Except for the PMR/1AR, you do not need to go down the flow line-by-line. In the case of the PMR/1AR, I suggest you interact with the most substantial new arguments in the opposition/negation block and not waste your five minutes going down the flow.

Organization:

Please signpost – I flow on spreadsheets, so signposting makes my life easier. If you don’t have clear signposting, there’s a high chance of me dropping an argument accidentally. I prefer using jargon such as turn/extend/cross-apply/etc., but only when both teams are comfortable using such language. Regardless of jargon, make it clear where you are on the flow.

Framework:

Provide a mechanism for flowing the round. Use this reference point to weigh all the arguments. Lately, I have judged rounds without such a reference – these rounds inevitably become a mess of “prefer our side – no, prefer our side.” Why should I prefer your side? How do your impacts and logic better link to the weighing mechanism? Impacts in a void are unhelpful – debate and life are relative.

Speaker Scores:

I start around 28 and then go up or down. More substantial argumentation and speaking will warrant higher speaker scores – where your contribution to the round is substantial. I disagree with judges who think anything rhetorical is irrelevant – how you convey your ideas matters, or why don’t we type out responses online and save ourselves the hassle of attending tournaments?

Theory

If used correctly, I am open to hearing almost any theory argument. I'm happy to judge the round if you sincerely believe a Kritik or Theory Shell is warranted. If you use a K or theory for strategic purposes, I will have a low threshold for voting against you if called out by your opponents. The history of theory debate is that marginalized groups and debaters used it to access better the space they had historically been shut out of. Using theory debate as a strategic decision without acknowledging these historical reasons is a disservice to the art of theory, philosophy, and the people who used them. I also believe that we can read more conceptual and technical arguments in a way that makes them more accessible while still retaining their core purpose.

As a first-generation, low-income, queer(bi), and Latinx former debater, I don’t think being against K’s as strategic gains is against minority debaters. I think we should all be inclusive first and then go to theory when that’s functionally not realistic or save it for the moments when we need that access or want an issue spotlighted in an accessible manner.

Of all the performances and competitions I’ve had the pleasure of watching, the speakers who stood out and ultimately, ranked the highest had a very clear and well-structured argument. They spoke clearly and they linked each of their contentions to the main topic at hand. It’s good to support your argument with sources from prior knowledge but don’t rely solely on factual evidence.

Even though this is a competition, please be respectful to your partners and opponents. No badgering and no spreading! Always maintain a level of professionalism and most importantly, have fun.

Lastly, stay healthy. Stay hydrated. And as always, good luck.

Lincoln High School 83'

BA Philosophy Reed College 89'

I am an experienced lay parent judge. I have judged for four years on the Oregon circuit and have judged nationals BQD. I want to see complete arguments, I will not vote on your blips. I value coherence and consistency of argument. I flow and vote off the flow, but I do not see debate as a game. Truth > Tech. I would say that I am tabula rasa, but to have a debate we must start from some very basic assumptions and ideas, therefore I will find arguments that rely on challenging foundational ideas to be unconvincing.

Here is a quote from the paradigm of the great Gonzo from Cleveland High School that I agree with:

"In fact, one reason we brought Parli into the state in 1997 was that we were looking for something less protocol driven and less linguistically incestuous. Policy and LD seemed to be exclusive to those who could master lingo. With Parli, we had a common knowledge street fight. ... But, I still have to understand what you are saying and why. . .and so does your opponent. (Hey, now this guy seems like a communication judge. Eye roll.) I will not judge on debate tactic alone; I am not a Game Player . . . though I did play PacMan [more than] once in 1981."

I have a background in philosophy. I will understand most of the phil you read, but that means I expect you to accurately represent the arguments properly.

I am not experienced in arguments such as T and K, it will not be strategic to run these arguments.

I am fully comfortable with plans and counterplans. Under some circumstances a plan can be very important to bring clarity and cohesion and sometimes a CP might be a key neg strat.

I like POIs. I see good usage of them as key to a good debate on both sides and they can be very strategic.

I see tag teaming as a basic rules violation, so I do not want to see it.

I cannot handle speed. Please talk at a reasonable pace.

Volume does not equal emphasis. I did not come to be yelled at.

Politeness is necessary. Any hateful language will be grounds for a 20 speaks loss (or whatever the minimum speaks of the current tournament are).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tag teaming. Tag teaming is fine.

I'm new to judging AP online. But have over 10 years of experience judging and coaching British Parli, PF, and Policy/CX. I have been debating since middle school and competed nationally as a Policy debater at the University of Richmond.

My short view:

1. You probably cant be too fast for me to flow, but probably too fast for the internet connection to hear you clearly. Please make sure that not just your partner can understand you.

2. Debate is about comparisons. You'll need to clearly explain not just what your argument is and why it is important but also why it is more important than the oppositions.

3. Please be polite to one another and treat each other's arguments with respect. No sexism racism or bigotry.

I'm always open to giving feedback and happy to be contacted for more in-depth feedback after a debate.

Hello all. I was asked to step in and help out judge so you will notice my paradigm and survey are lacking! I'll go over before round and answer any questions. Good luck at ToC debaters!

Content and courtesy are the most important factors to me. I like to be presented with both the forest and the trees by the end of a debate. Focusing on details of your case, on individual points of clash and supporting your case is very important, as is not getting lost in the weeds and remembering by the end to tie everything up to a big picture view.

Please do argue forcefully and passionately - on both sides of the motion at hand. I find it very off-putting when teams try to win on the margins rather than engage with the substance of the motion/topic. So I really do not like overly narrow definitions and overly aggressive points of order where it's obvious you're just trying to throw the other team off and/or win on technicalities.

So with me you'll do well if you engage in detail and big picture with the actual substance of the motion and thoughtfully and respectfully clash with your opponents. This to me best shows engagement with and consideration to your opponents, me and the contest of debate in general.

Kathleen Clarke-Anderson- Ridgewood High School, Ridgewood, NJ

Pretty simple-

I have been a speech and debate coach in NJ for 38 years. Judge of LD, PF, Parli, some CX.

I know I need to hear everyone's contentions, sub-points, etc. I don't like spreading. I would like to hear the evidence clearly. For Parli- don't make a POI/POC every 30 seconds. I realize the differences in debate styles throughout the world and nation; however, I want to see a rational, solid round that includes a clash of ideas and evidence for any contentions. Philosophical thoughts and ideas are welcome; please be able to defend. Not a fan of "gimmick" cases. Saving lives always wins.

Basically- stock issues- clear presentation of contentions, off-topic or surface arguments tolerated, but not preferred.

Will weigh advantages/disadvantages.

If I don't believe you are using your evidence correctly or out of context I will ask you for it.

Please do not be abusive you will lose speaker points. Above all keep in mind equity, diversity, and inclusion, this means, no hating, no discriminating of others, and no triggering comments/contentions without warning.

I believe that all debates should be an educational activity, with inherent qualities of persuasion and logic. I want to hear debating about the topic, not technicalities of rules. I also want a persuasive, well-presented debate, and NOT speed delivery.

Spread is a cancer on the body of debate which must be excised. If I can’t understand what you are saying, how can I vote for you?

If you run a lot of theory, you need to convince me why I should care - I am not an expert. The last time I took a debate class, you weren't born yet.

Skeptical of Kritik, but if you can persuasively tie to the actual topic, it could work with me.

I want to see engagement and clash more than anything else. This should not be two teams talking about two worlds. To win, you need to address what the other team is saying. This is a simple point, but sometimes overlooked. This happens most frequently when the negative team has a Kritik that they have clearly practised and polished. If you can't relate it persuasively to the actual topic and what your opponents are saying, it's not going to work no matter how smooth your canned speech is.

I strive to be a tabula rasa. If you tell me the moon is made of green cheese, it is, until the other team refutes it. However, the blatantly fabricated statistics in use by some teams are tiresome. Once you get into "pants on fire" territory, I am going to start docking speaker points even if I have to give you the win. FYI, for the team faced with the "pants on fire" argument, you have to point it out to me. It may not take a lot of evidence to refute an argument postualted without warrants, but you still have to call your opponents on it. If you don't, they win the point by default.

I am basically a "flay" judge, meaning I am a lay judge who attempts to keep a flow chart. If you help me by making your arguments easy to flow, you are more likely to win.

Going more or less chronologically in regards to occurrence within the round

. I dislike fluff at the beginning of speeches and off-time roadmaps. A brief outline is fine, but the best thing you can do is to sign post clearly and regularly during your speech.

. Don't spread, it is your responsibility to speak at a pace at which it can be reasonably expected that a judge will be able to write down what you say

. Use POCs, they should be asked at the beginning of the PMC.

. Impact and weigh throughout

. Aim to make me as redundant as possible-- evaluate the merits of arguments in the round, weigh them against each other, crystalize the round, and taking into account all that was said state simply what made your sign win the round or the other side lose the round

2019-20 is my 3rd year as a parent judge. Please speak clearly and not too fast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Above all, have fun.

I have been a speech and debate coach for 3 years.

Please speak clearly and not too quickly.

Make your contentions clear and organized with supporting evidence.

Ensure that you respond to the opposing side's points/contentions. Do so in a professional manner-do not become overly defensive or argumentative.

Stephen Fitzpatrick

Director of Debate, Hackley School

I am primarily a Parli debate coach - that said, over the years I have coached and judged virtually every debate format.

As a former trial attorney, I am looking for clear, persuasive, and intelligible speakers - speed-reading from your computer screen will not impress me. If I can't understand what you are saying, either because of the speed with which you are saying it or due to a lack of explanation, reliance on jargon, and no explicit connection to the resolution, it will be far less likely to impact the round. Beware of reading cases you either did not prepare or do not understand. In Public forum, that will be especially evident during cross-fire. I will flow, but only to the extent I can follow what you are saying. Same goes for any Points of Information or other forms of interrupted speech in other types of format. Be polite, be direct, and be persuasive.

As for evidence, spitting cards at me without tying them explicitly to your arguments and the overall resolution will also have a limited effect. I pay close attention to cross-fire - ask good questions, be generous, listen to your opponent's responses, and respond accordingly. I reward debaters who have a solid understanding of the factual underpinnings of the case as well as basic knowledge of current events, historical precedents, and specific details directly related to your arguments. If one of your contentions requires specialized scientific, legal, or economic principles, make sure you can explain them to clear up misunderstandings and clarify factual disputes.

In a Parli round based predominantly on argumentation rather than concrete factual evidence, make sure you explain your logical connections clearly. None prepped rounds does not mean NO evidence - good examples from history, general summaries of common knowledge, and comparisons ore references to basic factual information all have a place in debate. Tethering your arguments to some sense of how the world actually works is preferably to entirely theoretical arguments that have little grounding in reality.

I will be open to persuasive, integrated cases, and critical impacts. In Public Forum rounds, make sure to summarize the round during final focus. I am not an overly technical judge, so I will take every speech into consideration and even consider arguments in cross-fire to be part the round when making my decision. Speaker scores will range based on a variety of factors, but speaking style, demeanor, and argumentation will all factor in.

Overall, I would be considered a FLAY judge - I abhor the phrase "tech over truth" - debaters who like to earn wins on technical conventions not actually in the rules or use arcane jargon that no one outside the debate world understands will be disappointed with my rulings if their arguments aren't clear and easy to follow.

Hi! I'm Edward. I debated parli at Evergreen Valley High School for 4 years & currently debate APDA at Yale. I want to keep this paradigm short, so I'll just give a general overview of my experience & how I evaluate arguments.

I did a lot of lay and flow HS parli. I qualled to TOC twice & was in finals at NPDI 2019. I prefer flow debate, but I'm a little bit out of touch with it since I left the west coast. I'll evaluate lay debate on the flow; "quality" of speaking doesn't matter to me. If your opponents aren't familiar with non case arguments, explain them. I have low tolerance for exploiting progressive arguments to win rounds. Don't spread opponents out if they can't handle speed. I will tank your speaks and depending on severity (don't test it) I will drop you. If you make problematic arguments (exclusionary to other debaters) I will drop you. I'm not too great myself with speed, but I can usually follow. Moderate speed is okay, but it's probably best not to spread. I might drop some args if you're too fast and I might call slow or clear.

I evaluate case by comparing contentions (also turns) and their impacts. I'll ask myself if you get access to your impacts with reasoning/links, if defensive arguments mitigate your impacts, and how your impacts compare against your opponents' impacts. I default to a utilitarian analysis and don't have too much experience debating other ethical frameworks.

I flow T with an interpretation, violation, standards, voters, and underview. I'll ask myself three questions about the argument. What did your opponents do wrong? Why should I care? How should I treat it in context of other arguments? If you answer those three questions, I'll have a good idea about how to evaluate it. If you don't specify, I'll treat T as an A priori voting issue, but I won't know how to evaluate it: your opponents might wiggle out.

I really liked kritikal debate. I didn't really run anything but Cap (lol), but I'll listen to other stuff. Just explain it really well. Try to link your framework back to actual material impacts: I don't really know how to evaluate stuff that doesn't link back to real things.

I said this'd be short but I don't know if it is. Hopefully it wasn't too much of a read! Have fun and good luck!

Hi I am an experienced parent judge. I have a pretty good understanding of the world and economic systems. I value probability over magnitude for the most part but can be convinced otherwise. I do not want every debate to be about mass extinction or how one economic policy leads to nuclear war. I can understand theory but am not likely to vote on it unless clear abuse in round. No Ks. No speaking fast. I prefer logic over straight facts. Repeating your point does not mean that you responded to their point. Do not say that a team conceded an argument when they clearly did not. POIs are fine but do not ask more than 2 and do not be obnoxious while doing it will drop your speaks. It is fine if you choose to decline a POI but between the two partners, you have to accept at least one. CPs are fine even PICs but if you are running CP you have to prove that your CP solves better. I do buy mutually exclusive arguments through net benefits but you have a harder job to me proving that the aff does not just do the same by perming the CP. If you want to perm do it as a test of advocacy as that is easier to understand as a judge. All advocacy/rhetoric is binding do not try to kick anything. Try not to run new contentions in the second speech. I do not protect the flow. Try to use less jargon while actually debating. I can understand some of it but not all. Have fun.

Email for chain/questions: jonahlg20@gmail.com - if we can skip GCX and start the round asap, +0.5 to everyone. I have almost never seen anything important happen in GCX, and it probably shouldnt exist

i am flow. I will vote on the flow. I did HS PF and now college parli. run w/e you want but just don't be a dick. I have some experience with theory/Ks, but prob not enough for you to feel comfortable running them in front of me unless they are pretty intuitive (disclo, CWs, etc).

ANALYTICS ARE GOOD, PLEASE DO THEM. I WILL VALUE A VERY SMART ANALYTIC/LOGICAL RESPONSE AS MUCH AS I VALUE SOMETHING THAT IS CARDED WHEN THE WARRANT OF THE CARD IS NOT DEEPLY EXPLAINED. While I am tech > truth, I still need to hear the warrant behind the cards, and am receptive to the opposing teams calling out logical gaps in link chains. If you are reading a prepout on someone but cannot explain why your responses are true, I have a high propensity to drop your response, even if it might be dropped.

(stolen meme)

At a minimum, frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, and please collapse early for cleaner rounds.

If I need to presume for some reason because there is literally nothing for me to vote on, I will presume to the 1st speaking team, not neg. If the reason isn't obvious, feel free to ask me why.

Ask me before the round about any other prefs or about APDA debate in college after round. If u want more feedback you can FB message me or just ask me after round.

Speaks - 3 ways to get a 30 from me:

1. Read a purely analytics rebuttal through FF. If you don't use cards and win, you certainly deserve it. I strongly encourage you to try this with me if you are confident, since I have a stronger propensity to pick up analytics than most TOC judges

2. If you win so hard on the flow you don't even need to do any weighing bc you are winning everything. If you think this is the case then just mention this part of the paradigm in ur speech and if ur right ill give 30.

3. win the round while using 0 prep time as a team - literally be ready to speak right after the preceding person (obviously does not apply if you used 0 prep then lost lol)

I will give speaks based on who debated the best, not who spoke the best. Basically whoever gave the round-winning analysis should be #1 always even if the other team spoke pretty

Hi. My name is Rachel Goldstone. This is my third year judging debate. I tend to vote on who has better hair or who can talk in a better British Accent. Haha, Jk

My son informs me that I am a flay judge because I know to to flow and stuff. Still, please don't spread and do explain technical jargon. Probably a bad idea to run a K on me, but I'll do the best I can. If you really explain a theory, it might be alright. Don't be an **unkind person** with POIs and POOs. Tagteaming and other stuff is alright. Generally, I like it if you're funny. Don't kiss up.

I know you are working hard and I look forward to meeting you, hearing your arguments and learning about the world of debate.

Hello all! I am going to start with a brief description of who I am and my background. I am a current third year student at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo majoring in History. I did three years of Parli debate at Grover Cleveland HS in Los Angeles. I am currently competing in the college YODL BP Circuit. I love debate as an institution, I think it was probably the most important thing I did in High School, the critical thinking and just overall breadth of knowledge you gain from it are unmatched. I use he/him/his pronouns.

tldr: do impact calculus, compare arguments, try to be nice, write my RFD for me throughout the round, make your warrants and impact weighing obvious. Good chance I won't understand your speed reading. PLEASE SIGNPOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Speed and Structure: Please do not spread, you can talk fast, but there is a line you cross when you spread that I cannot understand. Please use points and subpoints when presenting arguments, it makes it much easier to flow. Try and go from one side of the flow to the other, Gov to Opp (or vice versa). If you notice your judge's paradigm below, it's because I constantly commandeer bits of other judges' paradigms to improve my own.

Theory and Kritik: I prefer case debate, I think that it is just more fun and interesting. If running theory, please make it obvious the abusive actions of your opponents. I will vote on theory based on exclusion. For Kritik debate, if it is genuine and has a clear connection to the round I will vote on it. Have a solid alternative, that is not just for me. Assume myself and your opponents know nothing about complex philosophical ideas and know no rhetoric. I am by no means an expert in Ts and Ks. Like I said before, I much prefer case debate, unless it is absolutely necessary and you warrant as such, stick to the resolution.

Congress: Everything for speed and structure should apply, speak clearly and prounounce your words. Follow the Rules of Order and listen to the PO. Impact well!

If you say or do anything bigoted I will drop you. You will also get the lowest possible speaker points.

Ask me if you have a question about my paradigm or a brief summary in the round.

Hey! I'm Christopher (he/him, xe/xem) and I'm excited to be your judge! I'm an third-year undergrad student at UCLA pursuing Communication and Disability Studies. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round or email me at chris.p.ikonomou@gmail.com.

Experience:

I'm currently coaching parli at New Roads High School, and I’m a former parli debater and captain of the Menlo-Atherton High School debate team. I have 5 years of parli experience. My partner and I were in the top 10 of the NPDL rankings for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years, and I’m well versed in both lay and flow debate (I personally prefer the former).

TL;DR: I’m down to listen to anything you can get me to understand, but I prefer topical, warranted, and logical debates. Just make sure you explain yourself. Take a couple POIs.

Formalities:

Put your pronouns on Tabroom if you feel comfortable doing so! A small gesture can make the debate space a bit more comfortable for trans/nonbinary debaters (I know it helped me feel welcome). I don’t want to put you on the spot before the round by asking for pronouns, so only use pronouns your opponents have confirmed and use gender neutral language (partner, opponent, etc). On NSDA Campus and Zoom, you can edit your screen name to include your pronouns (if you feel inclined).

If you need an accommodation (be it related to a disability or something else) please ask before the round starts (or shoot me an email before). Remember this is supposed to be fun!

Case:

This is what I was best at. Good case debate will reward you. Have warrants for your claims/links, quantify, diversify, and weigh impacts. Tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents so I don't have to. Just saying "our impact negates/outweighs theirs" doesn't work if you don't give me any context for why, especially if the argument is less well known. Offense is important, tell me why they lose (and use that to prove that you win).

Good speaking is often associated with case debate. I personally enjoyed using rhetorical flourish myself when competing! However, you won't be penalized if speaking isn't your strong suit. I trust you're doing your best.

Theory:

I have a fairly high threshold for voting on theory. I need proven abuse to vote on theory and I default to reasonability. I will vote on theory that points out exclusion from the other side (speed, misgendering, etc).

Kritik:

Don't run an AFF K if you don’t disclose and give your opponents an opportunity to engage. NEG Ks are fine. I’ve run some projects about exclusion and my experience in the debate space, and I prefer criticisms that are genuine and have a link and alternative that effects actual change in the round or participants' mindset. Do not run identity-based Ks about groups you are not apart of (unless an instance of oppressive language/behavior happens in round about a marginalized group). If you lack experience responding to Ks, mention that in your speech and let me know how I should weigh your arguments against the K (i.e. should I rely more on logic than how many arguments you can counter, discussing current events are more impactful than theoretical debates, etc)

I can vote on other Ks, I just may not feel good about it. Explain anything related to literature well, especially terms and any abstract concepts (post-modernism is confusing and you probably want me to understand what you're talking about). I have little patience for debaters who run Ks just for an easy win against a less experienced team.

Speed:

Not too good at it. I’ll let you know if you’re going too fast (I’ll yell slow or clear). If you don’t listen, there's no guarantee I'll flow the rest of your speech). Don’t spread your opponents out, seriously.

Speaks:

Points are rewarded for speaking, humor, good strategy, etc. Average speaking will get a 27.

Enjoy yourselves. Debate was my thing in high school (I debated into out rounds instead of going to the hospital for a collapsed lung once in my junior year). Have fun, it’s not the end of the world, and ask any questions before and after round. (I’ll disclose with RFD if rules/time allows)

I will drop you if you are racist, transphobic, queerphobic, misogynistic, ableist, etc, even if your opponents don’t make it a big voting issue. I will lecture you in my RFD. You’ll also get the lowest speaks I can give you. Bad rhetoric is the first step towards violence and dehumanization in the real world.

PARLI:

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 roadmaps/thank yous. 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. Please run other theory arguments only when necessary to protect the fairness/safety of the space, not just because they're fun or to gain a strategic advantage.

THE LONGER VERSION: I am the debate coach for Berkeley 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. Please don't say "Try or die." It's trite and overused. When you say "try or die," I hear "we don't have any good responses to their analysis that our plan won't solve the problem." Use your time instead to explain your causation arguments more clearly, or the lack of offense on the other side.

6. 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 30-90 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. If you're challenging their plan/arguments as non-topical, just explain what the Gov team is supposed to prove ("the interpretation") and why they do or don't prove it ("violation/no violation"). If you're challenging their definition, tell me their definition, the "real" definition, why yours is better, and why it matters. 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 30-90 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. In the interest of candor and your ability to adapt, I've never heard an argument for competing interpretations that I found persuasive, so trying to convince me is not a good use of your time.

7. Please take at least one or two points of information.

8. 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.

9. Kritiks: I am generally unreceptive to them. You can use your speech time however you like, but I have a very strong default to judging the round based on arguments for and against the resolution, which you will have to persuade me to abandon. The fact that you have better K debate skills than your opponent does not inherently validate your stated justification for running the K.

10. Shadow extensions. If an argument is on my flow and unresponded to, it's yours until rebuttals. I don't need it to be extended in every speech if the other side is ignoring it. I'm also not deeply troubled by new responses in LOR that should have been made in MO, because I don't see the harm to the other team. (But I still encourage you to say it in MO when in doubt.)

11. Random things I will not penalize you for ignoring, but I will appreciate if you do read and consider:
a. You don't mean it when you say "Time starts on my first word." That was 12-17 years ago. And even if you're talking about the present, literally, "Time" was your first word. Unless you had an offtime roadmap.
b. It is wrong for me to vote mid-round, so please don't ask me to do it. In fact, I'd prefer you didn't call for the ballot at all. Just make good arguments for your side.
c. "Empirics" doesn't mean what you think it means. Neither does "Solvency."

LD/PUFO:

No plans or counterplans, please. If you run one, I will probably drop you. I prefer traditional-style LD value debate.

POLICY 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.

I am the Parli debate team advisor for Horace Mann School. Attention to style is as important as substance: do not rush your speaking points and be courteous to your opponents. A winning team will make clear and concise arguments, follow through on points, use real-world examples if possible, and thoughtfully counter the other team's assertions.

Every argument is not worth one 'point'. Understand which arguments are most important and have the most weight, and help me as judge to see them. Convince me that your argument valuable, and choose high value examples and arguments such as those that advance humans towards a sane future or promote the highest values of justice, peace and opportunity. Defend the practicalities, but when the details are ambiguous, principles will lead me make a decision. That said, no hyperbole. Debate as though the stakes are high. But do not tell me the issue is a matter of life and death, unless you can convince me that it is.

The principles you are arguing from should presented with complete clarity by the first speaker, defended by the second, and made undeniable by the third. Refutation should be complete, but efficient. To me, good debaters refute the opposing team succinctly by seeing through to the underlying misconceptions. Demonstrate your ability to listen and respond not only to the individuals in the room, but to the wider audience who may be affected by the decision. Therefore, be passionate, insightful, and aware of the stakes.

I am a parent judge who has been judging in Parliamentary for the past 3 years. I appreciate clarity and logic above everything. Make sure that you thoroughly address your opponent's points. Don't speak too fast, I find that debaters often lose out on content and emphasis from "spreading."

I prefer case debate, but if you must run more technical arguments, make sure to explain them thoroughly. I will require more explanation and convincing for arguments that are further away from the topic.

I have a basic understanding of topicalities. Not too familiar with theory (dislike frivolous theory) or kritiks.

Have fun and good luck!

I'm a typical flow judge/high school debater. Make sure to signpost, and try not to spread. I don't like theory, so don't run it unless it's absolutely necessary. For PF - make sure that you explain your evidence and tell me why it matters. Warrant!

Be funny, but don't be mean. Ask me before the round if you have any questions!

If you need to contact me for any reason: Ariel.kirman22@trinityschoolnyc.org

I am a lay judge.

I am affiliated with Dougherty Valley High School. I usually judge parliamentary debate and am familiar with the event. This is my fourth year judging. I will award speaker points by looking for clarity of thinking and cogent delivery.

I will base my decision at the end of the debate on strong arguments and good responses. If you run a counterplan, make sure you effectively argue why it's better than affirming the resolution, or going for the status quo. If you run a PIC, you have to make it very clear why the PIC is more net beneficial than the AFF's plan.

I will take a lot of notes and pay thorough attention throughout the debate. Don't overuse statistics and evidence. Evidence is there to support your argument, so use it when necessary.

Real world impacts are important. Talk about real-life scenarios as much as possible.

I value truthful arguments over debate skills. Debate skills should help you extend and defend truthful arguments. Don't try to win on technicalities, use logic and strong argumentation to win the round. If your opponents concede your argument, I will acknowledge it, but don't use that concession to win the entire round. If your arguments are better and you defend them well, you will win.

I'm a coach with experience in public forum debate, parliamentary debate, and extemporaneous debates. Some general notes:

ALL STYLES

- Arguments only matter if they extend across the flow. If you raise a contention in the first speech, then drop it for the bulk of the round, I won't count it.

- I'm generally quite literal with frameworks. You tell me something is important, it will show up on your ballot as part of your reason for decision. An extra speaker point to both debaters on any team who successfully uses frameworks OTHER than utilitarianism or net benefits.

- Impacting your contentions matter, but your links (i.e. how you connect steps of your contention together) matter more. Don't foresake one for the other.

- I'm not impressed by use of hyper-specific debate jargon. Use of jargon that I don't understand OR replacing actual refutation with jargon will result in deduction of speaker points. Assuming I'm a lay judge will serve you well.

- I do not find roadmaps useful. If you need to do it to keep yourself organized, that's fine, but I will probably disregard them.

- Definitional debaters are normally not useful or compelling unless they have a high impact outside of the debate itself. I have almost never awarded a round on the argument that a definition is "tight" or unfair to one side, but have rewarded rounds based on substantial definition debates that have practical or philosophical impacts. (E.g. debates over the nature of justice.)

- I rarely vote in favor of kritiks. I find it's rare that the issues raised in kritiks are impactful enough that they justify derailing the debate as traditionally presented. Their impacts often require judge intervention into the round that is independent of actual arguments being made, which I do not feel comfortable with. If you wish to make a kritik, you should make it with the assumption that you're likely to lose the round and that that is worth it for you.

- There are no silver bullets in debate. These are general guidelines, but following these will not guarantee you a win and should not be treated as such.

FOR PUBLIC FORUM

- Quoting cards will not win you debates; how you explain your cards matters.

- I'm more impressed by speakers who speak using their own words and paraphrasing of evidence rather than quoting from pre-written cases.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

- POIs strongly encouraged. Debaters who refuse to take any POIs (especially if multiple are offered) will find their speaker points severely docked.

- It's hard to win on the OPP block. GOV teams who start weighing arguments in the MG and lay out a clear framework for why they're winning the round are more likely to win. In addition, GOV teams who call dropped args by their opponents will go far.

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE

- BEWARE THE HALF AFF! A lot of CDA teams spend their round encouraging me that they are actually just like their opponents only without the bad stuff. This won't win you rounds with me. The debate has given you a side; stick to it!

I am a lay judge, so I will decide based on my understanding of your arguments. If you use jargon, please explain. Explain your case clearly; your warrants should include what it means and what the impacts are. If I cannot understand you (spreading), I will be not be able give you credit for your arguments. Please be respectful, speak clearly, number your arguments, and provide organized, logical arguments. Good luck!

Hi all,

It is my 2nd time to the judge of this speech and debate program.

And it is my pleasure to be here.

Best Regards,

Jack Z. Lin

Evergreen , San Jose, CA

Hi, I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly! I have judged many pf rounds before, but I am still definitely not a flow judge. In round, make sure that you're using logic to explain your arguments thoroughly as well. If you see me writing, don't take it seriously, I am just taking notes. Don't be rude and have fun!

---

Hi this is his daughter that does PF and from what he's told me abt judging here are some tips if he's judging you:

-he doesnt flow everything u say :((( so make sure you're emphasizing the most important things he should be flowing

-he won't feel comfortable voting off your argument if he doesn't understand the logic (if he doesn't understand either side he randomly chooses lol so TALK SLOW and MAKE SENSE)

-he likes it when you have arguments that directly clash (pro and con both run the same arg i.e. innovation) but he also likes clean extensions of args that go conceded

-he adores clean signposting

-also he works in like biology/physics/medical related stuff and knows a lot abt pharma so be accurate lol or he'll know

Paradigm for Parliamentary Debate

I did Lincoln Douglas debate in high school for three years (a long time ago!) and parliamentary debate in college at Princeton. Debate was an amazing activity that I loved doing. It trained me very well to be a lawyer -- I am now a litigator and I debate with my adversaries in court instead of high school classrooms. I started judging high school parliamentary debate in the Fall of 2018. High school parli is different from college parliamentary debate and very different from Lincoln Douglas so be aware that I am very familiar with debate, but I am not as familiar with all high school parliamentary lingo.

Things I like:

-- clash (I promise I won't hold it against you if you take a position that I don't agree with, but I really enjoy judging debates where the two sides create a lot of clash and disagreement on the resolution)

-- when you hit all their points. don't drop arguments.

-- organization (please sign post, help me flow)

-- really good quality public speaking (you can talk as fast as you want as long as I can understand you; I think debate should be both persuasive and strategic -- this means I will evaluate both what you say and how well you say it)

Things I do not like:

-- theory

-- running a "K"

-- jargon and acronyms that I don't understand (if you use jargons and acronyms, please just explain them to me)

-- being disrespectful of your opponents (you can crush them, but please do it respectfully)

Hello Debaters!

Good for you at checking paradigms.... I judge several different types of debate:

As a communicator, you should be able to adapt to your audience...ie Judge.

Have fun! Debate is a wonderful activity where you can be smart, have fun, and learn at the same time.

Some items I think you should be aware of that I think weakens your presentation:

Being rude, forgetting to tag your cards, not having cards formatted correctly, and not making some kind of eye contact with judge during cross.

DO NOT say please vote for Aff/NEG...your argumentation and evidence should demonstrate your side should win.

Things to help your presentation: Smile, being polite, and organizing your arguments with internal signposting...sharing cards and evidence before using them.

Public Forum- DO NOT PROVIDE AN OFF TIME ROADMAP- I do not need it.

Please have started the email chain and flipped as soon as you can.

include me in the email chain macleodm@friscoisd.org

Or use a speech drop

General Ideas

There is not enough time in PF for effective theory/K to run. I will not vote for you if tricks or theory are your only arguments. I expect the resolution to be debated and there needs to be clash.

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a mom of two five year olds and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Policy I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.

I can't stand the K. Please don't run one. Debate the resolution or run a T argument but very rarely will I vote off case arguments.

Parli/World Schools- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence. I love stories and learning new TRUE stuff...

LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.

Congress- Please make sure to reference previous representatives speeches and show me you have been flowing and are responding to what has been said in round.

Showing decorum and being polite- like thanking the previous representative always a good thing :)

PLEASE DO NOT ask if I am ready- I am always ready or I will say to please wait.

World Schools- I love the decorum/Parli element and terminology usage. Attacking the premise of arguments, call out logical fallacies, and weigh the worlds please....Make sure to give examples that are not just made up- I know Harvard studies everything, but please refrain from making stuff up.

I do appreciate puns/tasteful humor and use those POI requests and answers strategically.

I am a parent judge who is not very familiar with tech. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to other debaters especially during POIs. Ask questions that are thought provoking.

Wants debaters to speak and read speeches at a moderate speed. Speed reading to achieve spreading is NOT ADVISED!

Debaters should stick to the actual topic of debate supported by facts/research and not resort to using technical tricks to score a win.

Do not treat Public Forum debate like Lincoln Douglas or Policy!!! It is meant to be audience friendly and not a Policy nightmare! Tubbing of evidence is not permitted in this style of debate. Do not present abusive values in Parliamentary debate. Stick to the Motion and DO NOT try to score on technicalities.

Debate ettiquette must always be respectful and professional

Be logical. Be thorough. Be respectful.

Have fun!

I love Parli! Between 2020-2022 I was the 2nd and 3rd highest ranked APDA debater, I've also done some BP. I'm not tab rasa and I generally prioritize strongly warranted + low impact analysis over weakly warranted + high impact analysis.

Conduct in Rounds. Be a good person. Rudeness isn’t persuasive so you’ll be penalized for belittling opponents. Also, discriminatory behavior means you’ll be voted down. Disclose your pronouns if you are comfortable. If a debater doesn't disclose their pronouns, refer to them by speaker position.

Frameworks. Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. I will intervene in weighing if neither team weighs. I rely heavily on weighing to vote.

Speed. I can follow very fast speeches. However:

(1) I prefer a slow pace.

(2) You must be clear because I won’t evaluate incoherent arguments.

(3) If opponents clearly cannot follow I will penalize you.

Points of Order. I don't protect the flow, please POO.

Theory. I prefer case debate over theory debates, purely for pedagogy. But I can evaluate theory (especially if you can demonstrate that something your opponent is doing is clearly unfair or abusive).

Kritiks. I am generally unreceptive. I strongly default to judging the round based on arguments for and against the resolution, which you will have to persuade me to abandon.

Counterplans. I'm supportive of counterplans and I'm okay with kicking them. The counterplan must be mutually exclusive with the gov plan.

Topicality. Should not unnecessarily replace substantive debate. If you're challenging their plan/arguments as non-topical, just explain what the Gov team is supposed to prove ("the interpretation") and why they do or don't prove it ("violation/no violation"). If you're challenging their definition, tell me their definition, the "real" definition, why yours is better, and why it matters.

This will be Prashni's son writing the paradigm for her.

To convince my mom you need to do a couple key things:

Speak slowly and clearly

Avoid meta debates/technical debates. No Theory!!!!

If getting into a definitional quarrel keep it clean/base it in logic

Avoid Jargon

Furthermore, arguments are made more convincing for my mom through using examples.

Good luck!

I am a relatively new judge, so please explain everything clearly and thoroughly. If you want to run Theories or Ks, you can, but explain it to me as a parent judge, and not as a flow judge. Keep track of your own time, and I will only consider what you said in your time. Please do not spread, and talk in a loud, clear tone which is easy to understand.

I'm a former high school debater and have experience coaching parli and BP.

I can flow fast speeches, but online debates lend themselves best to slightly slower speakers. If you're speaking too fast for my internet connection, I will ask you to slow down.

I judge based on arguments not style. Speaker points are awarded based on the quality of your argumentation, not the quality of your speaking style. For rebuttal speakers, quality argumentation means effectively collapsing arguments and weighing. If you just repeat your arguments in a rebuttal speech, you're not doing your job.

I like examples. Since it's parli debate, that includes hypothetical examples. Please extend your arguments in constructives by giving new examples, new evidence, or new warranting or impacts. I don't like it when debaters repeat what their partners have already said. It's boring for me and it does nothing for your case.

You can run anything you want to as long as you explain it well :) theory and Ks are just arguments, so I treat them the same way I would treat any other argument.

Be respectful! I don't ask for pronouns because no one should be forced to explain their pronouns but don't assume your opponents' pronouns. I'd prefer you say "my opponent" then "he" or "she.

I am not a former debater. I'm a debate parent, coach, and Middle School Debate League administrator. I've been judging for around 10 years. For me to flow you well, don't spread or speak too quickly. Of course I try to be a blank slate and I won't tell you what arguments I think you should have run. I appreciate examples and illustrations, including hypothetical ones. I'm not a fan of repetition. I am a fan of clear definitions, plans, frameworks, models. I award speaker points based on clash, not style, but of course your delivery will make your clash more or less effective.

I did a variety of interp and platform events in high school. I am currently an APDA debater and will be happy to answer any questions about it! I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as they are presented in the round. I am not too familiar with theory arguments in PF so please do not run them. I like evidence.

I am generally not a huge fan of spreading in debate. I will do my best to flow, but I cannot promise everything you say will get on my flow if you speak exceptionally fast! Outline your warrants, evidence and impacts clearly. Sign post please!

I am also not a fan of debaters shaking my hand before or after the round A simple thank you is sufficient :)

this should go without saying but please be civil and respectful

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

I’m primarily parli these days, but the principles would apply to any form of debate I might judge.

I check all the boxes: successful, national circuit high school debater (policy/cross-ex); debate coach for over 25 years; tab director for over 20 years; debate league director for over 15 years; taught at a respected parliamentary debate summer workshop for 10 years. However, my career was in business, not education or the law, which does affect my point of view.

None of that is “actionable”, in that it is of no help to you if I’m sitting in the back of the room with my flow and stopwatch waiting for you to begin. The following may be more useful.

My role as a judge is to sort through the debate you and your opponent choose to have and produce a reasoned, persuasive decision. My “case” (RFD) should accurately reflect what was said and be acceptable to each of the debaters as a valid opinion on what occurred, even if they may take issue with that opinion.

This judge-as-debater approach has certain implications:

· My source material is the debate you choose to have. If you don’t agree on what it should be about, then my decision should be based first on your definitional arguments. If you do agree, then my decision should be based on the relative weight of arguments on the issue. If both teams agree—explicitly or tacitly—to have a particular debate, my opinion as to what the motion or debate should have been about is not relevant.

· The more work you do to lay out a path to a decision, the less work I have to do building my own, and the fewer decisions I have to make as the judge. That generally works in your favor.

· Your arguments should be based both on what you present and, perhaps even more so, on what your opponents present, with a fair comparison and weighing.

My business background has certain implications:

· Debate is intended to be educational. I have less sympathy for arguments that no one would make or consider in the real world. Theory arguments should be clearly explained and shown to have a serious impact on the matter at hand. The more distantly related an argument is to a plain reading of the motion, the greater the need to justify that argument.

· Not all arguments are equal. Judging is not simply counting arguments won, lost, or dropped, but comparing the persuasive weight of each side. I expect both sides will win some arguments and lose some arguments and drop some arguments. If you don’t weigh them, I will.

· Explanations count more than facts (at least explanations broadly consistent with the facts). For any arguable topic there will be examples that favor each side. The fact that some people survive horrendous accidents unscathed is not in itself an argument against safety equipment; that many will refuse to use safety equipment that is inconvenient or uncomfortable is, at least against that particular type.

· I don’t have a problem making decisions. I rarely take long or agonize over them. However, I will do my best to provide a detailed written RFD, time permitting.

Finally, debate is about the spoken word. It is your job to persuade me and in your best interest that I clearly understand what you want to say. It is not my job to be persuaded, nor to intuit what you intended to say beyond a reasonable effort on my part to do so. This has the following implications:

· Speak as fast as you think appropriate. I flow well and can tolerate speed. But if I don’t hear it, don’t hear it as intended, or don’t get it on my flow, it won’t help you. It’s not my job to signal you if you are speaking too fast or drifting off into unintelligibility.

· Why wouldn’t you present more arguments than your opponents can handle in the time allowed? Spread is a natural consequence of time limits on speeches. But 13 weak reasons why an argument is true won’t help you even if your opponent drops 12 of them, but wins the one most important to the issue. And debaters with more than one level of subpoints almost always get lost in their own outline. Quality spreads as surely as quantity and has more impact.

· I understand some debaters provide outlines, cards, briefs, etc. I will listen carefully to what you say, but I will not read anything you give me.

I have published a great deal of material of varying quality on the Connecticut Debate Association website, http://ctdebate.org . You will find transcriptions of my flows, various RFDs, topic analysis and general debate commentary reflecting my opinions over the years.

FAQs

Definitions? Definitions are a legitimate area of argument, but don’t ask me to rule on them mid-round. Gov has the right to a reasonable definition of terms. If Opp does not like them, Opp should challenge in a POC, POI or at the top of the LOC. Don’t wait to challenge definitions late in the round. Gov need not explicitly define terms or present a plan: clear usage in the PMC binds Gov and must be accepted or challenged by Opp. In other words, if it is obvious what Gov is talking about, don't try to re-define the terms out from under them. P.S. No one likes definition debates, so avoid them unless Gov is clearly being abusive.

Points of Clarification? Like them. Think it’s a good tactic for Gov to stop and offer Opp a chance to clear up terms. Should occur at the top of the PMC immediately after presenting definitions/plan/framework, etc.

Pre-speech outline or road map? A common local custom not to my taste. Speeches are timed for a reason, and I see this as an attempt to get a bit more speaking time. But, when in Rome… They should be brief and truly an outline, not substance. I will listen politely but I won't flow them.

New contentions in the Member constructives? Perfectly legitimate, though it was considered old-fashioned even when I debated 50 years ago. It also presents certain tactical and strategic issues debaters should understand and have thought through.

Counterplans? If you know what you are doing and it’s appropriate to the motion and the Gov case, a counterplan can be extremely effective. Most debaters don’t know what they are doing, or use them when there are less risky or more effective options available. Many counterplans are more effective as arguments why the status quo solves or as disadvantages.

Written material? I’m aware in some leagues debaters give judges a written outline of their case, or pass notes to the speaker. I accept all local customs and will not interfere or hold these against you. However, debate is by spoken word, and I will not read anything you give me.

New arguments in rebuttal (Point of Order)? You should call them if you see them. But if you see them every five words it begins to look like an attempt to disrupt the rebuttal speaker. Landing one good PO puts me on watch for the rest of the speech; multiple “maybes” will likely annoy me.

Evidence? Even in heavily researched debate like policy, facts are cherry picked. Even in the real world one rarely has all the facts. Explanations generally outweigh simple facts (though explanations that contradict the facts aren't really explanations). Information cited should be generally known or well-explained; “what’s your source” is rarely a useful question or counter-argument. I am not required to accept something I know to be untrue. If you tell me something I don’t know or am not sure of, I will give it some weight in my decision, and I will look it up after the round. That’s how I learn.

Theory? (See “business background” comments above, and "Definitions".) These are arguments like any other. They must be clearly explained and their impact on the round demonstrated. They are not magic words that simply need to be said to have an effect. Like all arguments, best present them as if your audience has never heard them before.

Weird stuff? Everyone in my family has an engineering degree. We’re used to intelligent arguments among competent adults. We know we aren’t as clever as we think we are, and you probably aren’t either. The further you drift from a straightforward interpretation of the motion, the greater your burden to explain and to justify your arguments.

Rules of debate? There are none, or very few. If your opponent does something you think is out of bounds, raise a POI if you can and explain the impact on the arguments or on the debate in your next speech. Most "rules" debaters cite are more like "guidelines". If you understand the reason for the guideline, you can generally turn a weak "that's against the rules" into a much stronger "here is why this is harmful to their case."

ejr, rev July 2023

As a lay judge, I look for teams to make cohesive, clear arguments. For me, the quality of your arguments weigh more to me than the quantity of your arguments. I will provide a short RFD. It’s a pleasure to judge your debates, and best of luck!

I would like you to be courteous to each other. The team with the better constructed argument and clearer communication will be the winner. Please use a moderate speed to deliver your arguments. Furthermore, please use discretion when calling for cards and please have cards ready upon request. Excessive card calling without a clear purpose will be noted negatively against you.

parent judge for 3+ years with a focus on parliamentary debate.

no theory or kritikal arguments, big advocate for fairness and i will hear arguments against abuse and violating fairness

evidence + reasoning > evidence > reasoning

i prefer when debates stay respectful, and most importantly, have fun :)

I am a lay judge.

I am affiliated with Dougherty Valley High School. I usually judge parliamentary debate and am familiar with the event. This is my third year judging. I will award speaker points by looking for clarity of thinking and cogent delivery.

I will base my decision at the end of the debate on strong arguments and good responses. I'm fine with CP's as long as it has solvency. PIC's are a great strat. Don't run conditional cps. TALK SLOW. If you are going too fast, I will say slow once. Don't read K's. Not a big fan of theory either but I default to reasonability. On framework, I enjoy util.

I will take a lot of notes and pay thorough attention throughout the debate. Don't overuse statistics and evidence. Evidence is there to support your argument, so use it when necessary.

Real-world impacts are important. Talk about real-life scenarios as much as possible.

I value truthful arguments over debate skills. Debate skills should help you extend and defend truthful arguments. Don't try to win on technicalities, use logic, and strong argumentation to win the round. If your opponents concede your argument, I will acknowledge it, but don't use that concession to win the entire round. If your arguments are better and you defend them well, you will win. Please weigh in your last speeches.

In high school I primarily competed in the World Schools and British Parliamentary formats, though I spent a bit of time with Public Forum as well. I currently compete in the British Parliamentary and American Parliamentary formats, and I coach for the Urban Debate League.

I assess analysis or logical reasoning more heavily than pure use of evidence, unless the evidence presented is common knowledge (e.g. something a casual follower of international news publications would think to be intuitively true). This means, for instance, that giving an example relating to Donald Trump's border wall proposal or South Africa's history of Apartheid would generally be acceptable, but citing the example of a specific local policy in Des Moines would be less persuasive on face. One drawback of relying too heavily on examples is that such evidence can be circumstantial and fail to apply to many other cases.

Some other quick notes about what I consider good debating practice:
1. Be confident in yourself. In many many cases, debaters doubt themselves or their speeches and decide to stop and panic. Don't! Breathe, take a moment if you need to, and remember that no one is here to judge you. In every single case I've seen, debaters who get the jitters are actually doing quite well—they're just psyching themselves out. So don't!

2. Be sure to tie each argument (or contention) back to the motion/topic specifically. If the motion is "This House Supports racial Affirmative Action in higher education," you should not be arguing "racism is bad" (hopefully, this is assumed). Instead, you should explain why Affirmative Action policies in university are a justified and effective way of lessening racism.

3. Tell me what the most important one (or maybe two) issues in the debate are. Very few teams are able to win every single clash in a debate, so the best way to assure your victory (read as: make it easy for me to vote for you) is to explain why your strongest arguments are also the most consequential arguments. if your team convinces me that this policy improves the economy and the other team convinces me that the policy is harmful to the environment, you should try to convince me that your economic benefits are more important than their environmental harms.

4. BE KIND TO YOUR TEAMMATES AND YOUR OPPONENTS, AND ENJOY YOURSELF! Debate is a highly stressful activity that is in some sense inherently competitive, but it's more productive to think of it as a process of learning through discussion. We learn more and have a better experience with debate when we are able to hear from and think about perspectives that we do not initially possess. So for your sake and for others' sake, remember that we're here to grow together!

Welcome to my paradigm. My name is Daniel Sorial, and I debated in High School for the Academy of Information Technology and Engineering (AITE for short) for three years, the latter two heavily in parliamentary. I'm now a junior at Yale, and a member of the Yale Political Union.

As a judge, I most value weighing and effective rhetoric. Final speeches on both sides should go off the flow and paint the bigger picture. Why does any of this matter? What are the future implications of passing or not passing this motion? 

As per debate techniques, spreading within reason is acceptable. Feel free to speak faster than conversational pace, but necessitating hyperventilation does not pair well with good rhetoric. Spreading should be avoided, but I understand if it is necessary. If you genuinely can't offer your entire case in your first speech, you can give more arguments in the second speech. If you think of a new argument before the second speeches, give it. However, purposefully designing your first two speeches to give some arguments in one and others in the other is bad debate etiquette because it does not allow full engagement by your opponents. It therefore ought not necessitate the same level of refutation. As for other things, Ks and T-Shells are fine, but explain them well incase your opponents are not familiar. Different parts of the country have different techniques, so use them as you please, but ensure everyone is on the same page.

In parliamentary, take POIs, as it shows you have control over your speech. You should offer multiple to your opponents in every speech you can, though the speaker should only take one or two.

I appreciate civility, but being too nice is awkward. 

Good luck!

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

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

I look forward to hearing your case. Good luck!

I am a lay judge, but have been taught to flow and have five years of experience judging PF. I prefer clear, slower speaking. Signposts are also super helpful. I don't intervene; I will judge your contentions by your ability to extend them and your opponents' ability (or lack thereof) to undermine them. I look for a logical argument. I like summaries and final focuses that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I've never called a card, but if an email chain is created, I would like to be on it. I'll give my email in the chat during the round. Speaking with passion is cool; aggressiveness is not. I do not like debates run on theory.

WEIGH. WEIGH. WEIGH. Otherwise I will be forced to do link/impact comparison for you, and you may not like how I do it.

TLDR on my paradigm:

I debated my junior and senior year of high school in the West LA/OCSL circuits and graduated in '20; qualified to nats and STOC my senior year & coached for ~3 years after that. I am now pursuing a bachelors in Politics & Public Affairs & coaching the debate team @ Denison U.

email: tan_s1@denison.edu

Important Things for the skimmers:

-I am about 75% tech 25% truth.

-Spread and I will drop you.

-I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis w/ a value of human life if no other framework is read and first speaking if there is no offense on the flow.

-I require weighing and extensions if you want to win the debate. Both defense and offense are not sticky (more on this below). I should hear extensions from the 1SS onward.

-I flow on paper, so keep it somewhat slow.

It has been quiteeeee a while since I've last judged, so please be gentle with my feeble mind.

If you are running theory or Ks, both sides must OK it for me to evaluate the arg. I never debated and have hardly judged pre-fiat so don't expect me to be anywhere close to my post-fiat judging abilities.

I have voted aff 69 times and neg 87 times (give or take), meaning an almost 56% neg bias. Yikes. I would guess the bias is from defaulting neg; I have since shifted to voting for first speaking in the interest of fairness.

Parli:

Debated parli mainly my junior year, I am versed in the event.

POIs need to be short. I will not flow them. Bring it up in a speech if it's important.

I'll tell you if I accept your Point of Order.

I am versed in topicality shells. I am receptive to prefiat args in this event, but you'll still need to slow them down and dumb them down a bit.

I prefer that Ks link in to the res, but non res Ks are fine, I'm just more receptive to res level.

I know that quantified impacts are hard to come by in parli. If you don’t have a quantifiable impact, I expect some sort of framing that replaces terminalization. If you don’t have terminalization or a framing level thing going for your impact, I find it difficult to vote for it.

LD:

I tend to evaluate the round on framing and VC above all else. Treat me like a flay judge (quick reminder that I have the least amount of experience judging this event). Pre-fiat args are ok (and encouraged), but no guarantee I can evaluate them well.

PF:

What I like to see in round:

Extensions: My threshold for extensions is fairly low. I expect you to extend every link in the arg you're going for; they can be paraphrased. I expect your impact scenario to be extended.

Signposting: I hate guessing where I should be flowing. Be explicit where you are going on the flow both before your speech and during it. If you think you're being obvious, be a little more obvious. Seriously, this is one of my biggest problems in-round. Signpost.

Two worlds analysis: I like to see this both on the weighing, warrant, and evidentiary level. Why should I prefer your weighing over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your warrant over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponent's? Compare them.

Weighing: Weighing is a must if you want to win the round. If you don't weigh and your opponent does, they win. Irrespective of the quality and integrity of your link chain and impact, I will always vote for the side with the winning weighing. If you both weigh, you'll also need to metaweigh to get my ballot.

Evidence analysis: I like it when you call for evidence. Evidence standards in pf suck and have been getting worse. You're likely to find some great responses if you call out crappy evidence. It also makes me happy to hear people call out a crappy card.

What I don't like to see in round:

Sloppy crossfires: Crossfire can be a great way to clear up confusion and communicate critiques of the other side. They can also be horrible screaming fits where nothing gets done and you both end up angry. Make sure you are having constructive conversation or I will drop speaks.

Disorganization: If your speech is not organized and super jumpy, regardless of signposting, I will likely get lost. Please have a strategy when you deliver.

Ad hominem: If you're racist/rude/homophobic you get L20'd & tournament management will be notified.

My quirks:

Defense is not sticky: Lack of defensive extensions, even if dropped, makes for a messy backend debate. You will win the defense if it is dropped, no need to spend too much time on it.

Post-rounding: I encourage post-rounding in order to better myself as a judge. Judges that drop you and say, "everyone did great!" made me extremely angry when I debated. If I missed something, bring it up. However, it will not change my ballot. If I missed it, I missed it.

The "truth" part of my paradigm: If the round gets really messy or your evidence sounds far too absurd then I will intervene. It pains me to say this, but the standard for evidence is already rock bottom and I am trying to make a minuscule difference. If you don't have messy rounds and read good evidence then this shouldn't worry you.

Remember that I am a human and debate is a game. I will sometimes make mistakes, please do not hate me for it.

I'm a parent judge with about two years of experience. With a PhD in English and a career at a policy institute (PPIC), I'm very familiar with analyzing arguments, weighing evidence, and maintaining an objective outlook. I will flow the debate, and I won't insert my own views or knowledge into my decisions.

I'm not that swayed by piles of statistics, especially if you can't explain why they matter. I'll consider any well articulated argument or point of view, but do your best to be sensitive -- and please don't weaponize the suffering of others to make a point. Trigger warnings are a good habit.

Peeves: spreading, unexplained jargon, and unnecessary use of theory. Also ploys like, "Their argument is clearly absurd!" Don't tell me something is wrong -- show me.

Be clear, courteous, and have fun!

I have judged for the past 9 years so I have experience. I debate with my wife everyday as well. I am a laidback judge, but I will flow the debate. Do not run "circuit" or "tech" arguments.

For PF, I trust evidence but I NEED analysis to weigh arguments (DO NOT CARD-DUMP). Give me voter issues.

For LD and Parli, logical arguments are necessary to get my ballot. Bring up evidence, but logic is as important if not more.

When you use evidence (especially empirics), make sure to explain how the study was conducted if possible (just helps me weigh "equal" evidence)

In every debate, signpost every argument.

Spreading = Loss

Disrespect = Loss

Feel free to ask my for any clarifications on preferences prior to the round.

An argument can be unpersuasive even if not addressed by your opponents.

I value quality of arguments over quantity.

Your speech should be a leisurely stroll, not a furious sprint.

Evidence is nothing without logic.

If you're discussing evidence in the final focus, you're not finally focusing.

Don't worry about calling for cards---I won't.

I find debate jargon tedious.

Civility in discourse is a crucial life skill.

***

Judging experience: 14 years

Debating experience: 9 years

Events, in descending order of experience: PF, WUDC, World Schools, Moot Court, NPDA, CUSID, APDA, Policy, LD, Extemp, Congress

Hello - I have been judging debate for over a decade. Please be clear and concise in your language, have your cards easily available if your opponents ask for them, and please stick to the topic of the debate. In other words, please do not allow the debate to devolve into focusing on minutiae

Finally, excessive card calling without a clear purpose is strongly discouraged.

The short but sweet version

Former Socal parliamentary debater and two time TOC qualifier. Tabula rasa. Theory is fine as long as it's not frivolous, not a fan of Kritiks. I prefer emphasis on the links rather than the sources. I weigh probability heavily, if you have an extinction impact, you need to have clear evidence or reasoning for exactly why this extinction impact is more than 1% likely. Speed is fine until it turns to spreading. I will protect the flow, but I understand if you want to POO to make sure I see the violation. Otherwise, I'm just here to watch a good debate.

More Specific Stuff Theory

I view debate as a game with the overall goal of education. The only way that education can occur is if there exists a way to have a fair debate. I'm especially responsive to topicality arguments and ground skew. Speed theory is also fine. I'm less inclined to vote on prep skew, there needs to be a legitimate grievance that isn't just "my opponents' plan isn't just the default argument to make." I'm not a fan of truth-testing. I will not vote on any argument that requires the opponents to have or have a specific buzzword(ex, didn't say link as part of their argument). I view that knowledge as exclusionary and not relevant to the debate, if they provided a link without explicitly stating it's a link, it's still a link.

Kritiks

Do not, under any circumstances, ask me if I'm familiar with the Kritik before you run it. Firstly, I don't know the Kritik, secondly I view that as an inherent attempt to violate tabula rasa, which I'm a big fan of. You're also gonna need to talk relatively slowly and clearly, I am not super experienced with Kritiks and hate flowing them quickly. Honestly, you're probably better off not running the Kritik.

Speed

Just don't spread please.

Speaks

I am pretty generous with speaks, I start at 28 and go up or down half points for if anything egregious happens. I leave myself about .5 based on my personal opinion of you. Clear, confident, and not overly fast speaking will definitely get you higher speaks. If you spread, it's gonna be hard for me to give you much above a 29, but if you're super clear I'd be willing to do it. If you have anything which you think could negatively affect your speaks(e.g. a stutter) and am worried I won't pick up on the fact that you have that condition, just mention it to me and I'll accommodate you in whatever way is necessary.

Default weighing

I am heavily invested in probability. If I had to give it a mathematical formula, I would say it's weight = probability^2 * magnitude * impact * timeframe. You absolutely need to convince me that this could happen. I prefer if the team collapses to one argument in the end, it makes my direct comparison easier. If I feel you won the round on something else, I'll obviously apply that first. I consider extinction impacts to have infinite magnitude, but at a certain point I may consider their probability to be 0.

DO's and DONT's: Do

Use logic heavy arguments with clear connections between your evidence and impacts.

Clearly state your magnitude, impact, and time frame(you don't need to use those exact words though).

Ask frequent POI's if applicable.

Don't

Bully your opponents for not knowing a specific part of a debate framework.

Go for loosely linked extinction impacts.

Spread, run Kritk's, or use frivolous theory.

Picture of My Cat

Picture of my cat.

PF coach for Los Altos & Mountain View. Competed in congress & PF when I was a student.

Brief off-time roadmaps are fine when needed. Be sure to signpost and let me know which arguments you're addressing. Please don't spread– you will do better if I'm actually able to flow everything you say. When addressing a case line by line (such as in rebuttal), try not to jump around. Go down the flow from top to bottom.

By summary and final focus, you should collapse on the arguments you feel are the most important. Tell me what your key voter issues are and why you believe you're winning those issues.

If you and your opponent have evidence that say opposite things, extending your evidence has to be more than just re-stating it. Why should I prefer your evidence? Why does it still stand even with the evidence your opponents presented?

Weighing needs to be comparative. It's not enough to say your impacts are big– the important thing is they're bigger than your opponents'.

Speaker points are awarded based on confidence, appropriate volume & pace, sportsmanship, and overall demeanor.

Not a big fan of theory or Ks.

Good luck and don't be afraid to ask any questions you have before the round!