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.

Updated: May 2021

Hello, I’m Theodore Avedisian, Dalton ‘21. I competed in PF + APDA in my five-odd years debating. In rough order of priority, what I most want to see in a round is (a) engagement with the crux of the debate, (b) sophistication/nuance, (c) strong clash, (d) clean summary of voters/weighing, and (e) organization.

How I judge: I flow carefully. You can expect a detailed RFD in round; I’ll also write a paragraph or two in tab. My cell is (646)838-4080: def text me after if you have questions. I dislike judge intervention but I’ll do it when appropriate. I follow whatever rubric I'm given for speaks.

Some guidelines:

Timing. Time yourself, don’t even ask permission. I only time pre-round prep, so if your opponent is exceeding grace, interrupt.

Skip the roadmap. I won’t penalize you for having one, but I’ve never seen a PF or Parli speech where the roadmap was helpful, let alone necessary. Just don't bother.

Civility & decency. If it seems like you’re trying to derail your opponent, I will reprimand you on the spot. However, it won’t affect the round outcome unless it a) is egregious or b) persists after fair warning.

[PARLI - NYPDL CHAMPS]:

(Inspired by Ryan Lafferty and Aron Ravin's paradigm)

A few notes on my personal stylistic and argumentative preferences

“Spreading” is something you do with softened butter on warm rolls, not something you should be doing in a debate speech If I hear you double-breathing to accommodate your fast speaking, I will assume you are having a medical emergency and call 9-1-1

If you say phrases such as “cap K,” “friv T,” or “K Aff,” I will assume you are talking about some musician’s stage name that I am simply not aware of.

If you use any jargon-y abbreviation I am unfamiliar with, I will Google that abbreviation and use the first search result to evaluate your argument. For instance, if you use the abbreviation “AEG,” I shall Google “AEG” and see that “AEG” refers to the “Anschutz Entertainment Group;” then do my very best to understand how your argument connects back to said institution.

Spiking is unethical, whether you're spiking someone's drink or spiking in a debate round. Don't spike.

I greatly enjoy moral philosophy, but do not use terms like "deontological" and "teleology" if you do not understand them. Also, do not just ask me to judge an ethics round from a utilitarian perspective because "it helps the most people." That is not an argument, as that justification already relies on a utilitarian worldview.

If you are charismatic, I will give high speaker points. While I will of course adjudicate based on argumentation, if you sound like Siri reading a 7 minute speech you will not be getting high scores.

Most importantly, don't use only low probability high magnitude events to justify the W. I will not vote on a .0000001% chance of nuclear war.

TLDR: Don't be hella boring, use good args, mechanize, and weigh

Parliamentary Debate

As a student at Friends Seminary, I debated with our nascent parliamentary debate team for three years. Finding both community and stimulation in our school's team, I was proud to represent them at tournaments around New York City in the NYPDL. I began judging as my senior year came to a close and have continued to judge virtually for the past year.

I'm always happy to answer questions before and after rounds, and I take feedback very seriously. In terms of argumentation, I appreciate creativity, historical accuracy, and ties to current events.

I find parliamentary debate rounds that get overly caught up on definitions to be discouraging: please don't let that monopolize the entire clash.

When it comes to Points of Information, I do not have a strong preference on how they are conducted, as long as everyone debating is in agreement. Before each round starts, I like to standardize how they will be conducted (whether that simply be unmuting or raising a hand). I understand that different people have different relationships with and access to technology, and won't hold any technological mishaps against the debater. Another note about POIs: please don't go back and forth.

I don't have strict rules about off-time roadmaps, but I do feel that they are overwhelmingly unnecessary. If you feel the need to present one, you may, but definitely don't feel pressured to do so. Finally, I always time speeches but prefer not to interrupt speakers for going overtime. Please be mindful of your time so the tournament can run smoothly.

Just do whatever ur comfortable with :)

Hi, I'm the former Captain of the Stuyvesant Parliamentary Team. I've been debating Parli since Freshmen year so I'm pretty familiar with the ins and outs of the format, but here are some notes on my judging that might differ from others:

- If a definition is abusive, it must be explicitly stated ( I want to literally hear, "we believe this definition is abusive" ) and I view abusive calls the same as other arguments, you have to properly warrant it out and tell me why exactly it's abusive.

- Even if a definition is called abusive, both sides must continue to debate under the "abusive" definition. I do not believe you can change your definitions in the middle of the debate.

- Examples are not warranting. If the only reason I should believe that X is true is that it happened somewhere, sometime in the past, it's not as convincing as giving me actual analysis on why X occurs or why X must be true.

- I'm usually somewhat confident in picking out which arguments are new in the last two speeches, but I definitely advise using POOs in case I just blank out - It'll usually never hurt to call a POO on something you genuinely believe is a new argument.

- No Theory ( Besides Abusive Calls ), I'm very much in the east coast line of thought that kinda hates Theory and Ks. If those terms don't mean anything to you, then don't worry about it.

- I like weighing. I think its a really complicated and hard skill to consistently use in rounds, but it's usually what determines rounds for me. If both sides have some relatively good impacts, then I side with the team that can argue their impacts are better in their last speech rather than regurgitating the arguments I already heard in the constructive speeches.

- I like creative cases that are done well. If you want to argue that it's actually better for America to turn into an Authoritarian - Communist paradise, then warrant out why it's good. If you are against a "creative case", don't just tell me it's ridiculous, or they're not being serious, give me reasons why I shouldn't believe what they're saying. Obviously, stay within the bounds of equity, prejudice is probably not where you want to go creatively, but everything else I'm okay with.

Other than these, I don't think I'm too different from any other judges, meaning things like being respectful, being organized, don't talk TOO fast which applies to basically anyone also applies to me.

I'm a senior at Trinity High School in New York City, and this is my fourth year competing in and judging Parliamentary Debate.

As a judge, I encourage debaters to be as organized and clear as possible. Please sign post and guide me through the flow -- explicitly tell me what your contentions, warrants, and impacts are. I'm only writing what you say. Final two speeches should be mostly weighing - tell me what you believe the major clashes are in the round. Tell me why you win under your framework as well as your opponent's.

I am a parent judge with relatively little judging experience. Please try to avoid technical terms and complicated technical arguments, as they will likely be lost on me.

Please signpost clearly so that I know where you are in the flow.

I strive to maintain an inclusive and safe space, so if you say something that I believe to be harmful or problematic, I will pause your time and address the issue to give you a chance to repair it.

Please be courteous, kind, and respectful to each other.

If you don't weigh, you won't win. That is all.

I am a senior at Bard Queens. I have been debating for the past seven years. I mainly do PF but I have parli experience as well (World Schools and AP).

I am good with speed but you should be coherent. No use making an argument if judge/opponents cannot understand what you're saying. This is not policy.

Aff needs to prove that their side is better than the status quo and they need to provide solvency. Neg has to prove that there are serious disadvantages to voting aff. Please please please extend your arguments through. Don't just repeat your arguments in final focus, that's a waste of time.

I won't flow cross but I will pay attention.

I am going into a round with a blank slate. Tell me why your impacts matter. Explain your links. I will follow an argument if it is explained well but you should do the heavy lifting for me.

I like progressive debate but I am unfamiliar with most kritik literature so you have to explain it to me. (I also wouldn't recommend running prog args at a local tournament but whatever floats your boat.)

Be kind. Debate is supposed to be a fun activity so enjoy yourselves! If you disclose or if there are any evidence email chains, loop me in: hope.dworkin@gmail.com

"Assuming a pill exists that compels the user to tell the truth, THW destroy it." — Recent fun motion

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

Read the following sections: Overview, General Paradigm, Miscellany and Weird Aside on Evidence -- all else is Parli specific.

Relevant information for PF: I have a strong distaste for theory but as per modern paradigmatic standards, I'm happy to evaluate it as warranted in the round. The bar to convince me to pick up or drop a team on a theory call is likely pretty high. I will tank you if the theory is strategic and not based on something reasonable.

Regarding evidence in PF. I actually debated PF some in High School, I'm not unfamiliar with evidence and carded debate. The maxim that evidence doesn't replace warranting is still true, though, and I will reward better warranted arguments over better carded arguments assuming the belivability of the claim is constant.

Ask me questions before the round if you have questions -- I'd love to get to know you as well -- debate is a game, but we are all members of the community of debate and I'd love to foster that as much as possible. Ask me questions about college debate if you're a senior (or not) -- I'll connect you with the debate team of your institution if you know where you're going etc. I love verbal RFDs so will probably give one. I don't understand PF speaker points so take those with a grain of salt.

I don't claim to be an expert in PF or anything close. I do understand argumentation, warranting, impacting, weighing, etc, and want to see all of that in a round at the highest quality possible.

Parliamentary Debate

If you read nothing else, read this: don't spread; don't tag team; keep stuff in your time; be wary of theory; impact; weigh; warrant.

Overview

I debated for four years as a student at Stuyvesant High School and currently debate APDA for Columbia University. I have experience teaching debate to middle school and high school students, I tab way too often, and have lead more judge orientations than I care remember. If you care, I'm the president of APDA, the oldest and best college debate league.

People tend to care a lot about these paradigms — I really don't — if you have specific questions, ask me before rounds, in GA, whatever. Please do ask if something is unclear!

I run whacky cases, I debate whacky cases, I choose whacky motions — I really don't mind a lot if it's done well and respectful and conducive to a good round of debate.

General Paradigm

So everyone likes to claim they're a tabula rasa judge. I think this is nonsensical. Obviously personal views will not influence the round, but as arguments leave the sphere of the normal and easily bought, the burden of warranting well increases.

It's reasonably straightforward for me to buy, for example, that individuals do things that make them happy, and since eating ice cream makes people happy, people eat ice cream; but is comparatively hard for me to buy that actually, instead of eating the ice cream in my refrigerator, I'm going to make a 2 day trek across tundra to obtain some of the same ice cream.

I don't mean to discourage complex, strange, or whacky argumentation; rather, I aim to encourage elegant, simple, but robust warranting.

Theory

Theory has its place (LD / Policy / new PF circuit / your dinner table maybe ?) — and it's almost never in a parliamentary debate round.

Please limit any kritiks, theory calls, whatever else theory masquerades as nowadays, to instances where the use therein is warranted. Unless something is tightly or abusively defined / modeled or one team is engaging in reprehensible behavior, there is no need for theory — debate the resolution. This is an instance where I am certainly not tabula rasa, I will almost always, except in these previous instances, assume that the theory is being used in an effort to actively exclude the other team simply because the assumption is that I, as a seasoned debater, can follow it (which I can). Except in the caveated cases, the burden is on the team using a kritik or some other theory to prove to me they are not doing this.

If you want to argue about mutual exclusivity of a counterplan, or whatever else you want to do, please be sure to not forget to warrant, and explain things in reasonable terms. Just as you're not going to go off using advanced economic terms in rounds, and instead going to explain how a bubble works (hopefully), don't just use a pick, actually explain and warrant it. And on that, a counterplan had better be mutually exclusive, or at least functionally so, given certain tradeoffs.

Expect lower speaker points and to lose in cases of over eagerly applied theory.

Miscellany

I don't want to warrant for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to impact for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to weigh for you. Don't make me.

I am not going to get into what makes a warrant 'good' or an impact effective or weighing necessary, please as your coach, varsity, mentor, or email me if none of the previous options are available to you (johnrod.john@gmail.com).

The final two speeches of a round (the rebuttal or crystallization speeches) are NOT to restate every point in the round, but instead are meant to synthesize, weigh, and flesh out impacts. Please do that. The most effective rebuttal speeches focus on two to three levels of conditional weighing. I won't vote on some random unimpacted and unweighed pull through.

Don't spread — think about a speed a non debater would be able to reasonably follow. This usually means something fast, but not double breathing. Side note: someone who enjoys spreading please explain to me how this doesn't destroy the educational value in learning how to be a rhetorical and persuasive speaker please!

Instead of focusing on a breadth of argumentation, please focus on a depth of argumentation that is complex, and includes a high level of weighing structures and effective warranting.

Tag teaming — never seen this in parli outside of the west coast. Don't do it, you'll have your own chance to speak.

POIs — take them, use them, respect them. Don't go back and forth — if I wanted crossfire I'd be at a PF tournament. Seriously. Also, these are supposed to be fun and humorous — if you don't believe me, watch the House of Commons — however, you are HS debaters and probably take everything way too seriously, therefore I'll settle for not rude.

Offtime Stuff — No. You don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it.

Weird Aside on Evidence

Please don't confuse providing evidence with providing warrants. Simply because you were able to effectively use Google and find someone who said something doesn't mean that it's a) true b) important c) relevant d) it will happen again e) isn't without opposing evidence. Please always default to explaining why something happened, not simply that it did, or that someone believes it will happen again.

I have never once picked a team up for the quality of a card, and no round should ever come down to a piece of evidence in any way, shape, or form.

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

Overview:

I used to do debate from my sophomore to junior years in Stuyvesant High School and have volunteered to debate for tournaments the Stuyvesant Parliamentary Debate team participated in since my senior year. I don’t really participate in debate tournaments in NYU but I enjoy some fun math and music and random conversations from time to time!

Paradigm:

My style is really simple: if I think a side argues a case with stronger arguments, then that will be the winning side. That said, what do I mean?

Firstly, I try to judge as unbiased as I can. I try to ignore my personal views and believe that whatever is said in a round stays in the round. Of course I like warranting and impacting but I think that weighing is probably the most important factor for me.

Also, try to make your arguments simple. Pretend I’m a five year old who doesn’t know anything about the topic and convince that naive child that your side’s arguments are better.

That said, remember, you are competing at debate tournaments. Competing does not dictate the course of your life. If you win, congratulations but if you lose, just learn from your mistakes and move on. Not worth getting depressed over a simple round, or even a tournament, because you’ll have plenty of other chances in life to get what you want.

(Real paradigm here)

TOC update: here are some resources I put together for the housing topic area

Background: debated in high school. That was fun! Included in my impressive list of accomplishments are such gems as: going 2-3 at Vassar, being told I am “dry enough to go straight into law” by a judge at Ridge, and spending approximately 23 seconds arguing that free will doesn’t exist in Yale Octos. Outside of debate, some of my hobbies include debating, débáting, and dëbätïng. For instance, if you ever find a college debate round with like 7 views on YouTube, 5 of them are probably from me.

Some notes on my personal stylistic and argumentative preferences:

- “Spreading” is something you do with softened butter on warm rolls, not something you should be doing in a debate speech. If I hear you double-breathing to accommodate your fast speaking, I will assume you are having a medical emergency and call 9-1-1

- If you say phrases such as “cap K,” “friv T,” or “K Aff,” I will likely assume you are talking about some musician’s stage name that I am simply not aware of. I’m kritical and kwestioning of the konsistent kustom of katering to adjudikators through kritical klaims in kompetitive debate. Konsequently, I kan’t komprehend komplicated kritical klaims. In short: kick the Ks to limit the Ls and wrack up Ws

- If you pull out one of those tripod-desk-stand thingies, I will assume you are using it as a table for brunch. And then get offended if you don’t offer me food.

- If you use any jargon-y abbreviation I am unfamiliar with, I will Google that abbreviation and use the first search result to evaluate your argument. For instance, if you use the abbreviation “ULI,” I shall Google “ULI” and see that “ULI” refers to the “Urban Land Institute;” then do my very best to understand how your argument connects back to said institution

- If you time yourself using your phone’s alarm and the ringer audibly goes off, I will assume the noise is coming from my microwave and immediately rush off to make sure my food isn’t burning

- Sometimes, when I’m walking around on the streets, people’ll come up to me and shout “RYYYAANNNN – WHAT’RE YOUR THOUGHTS ON USING ABUSIVE DEFINITIONS TO GAIN A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE???” to which I always respond: “Roses are red, violets are blue, don’t use abusive definitions, for I will hate you :)”

FAQ

Q: Are you okay with PICs?

A: Not sure why you capitalized it like that, but I absolutely ADORE dog pics, cat pics, fluffy cow pics, or basically any [insert cute thing here] pics

Q: Do you like theory?

A: Depends on the theory. Like, for instance, I’m really into the theory that colleges are just money laundering fronts for the massive #2 pencil lobbying industry. Watch out folks: it’s not just Big Oil and Big Pharma that runs the world. It’s also Big Pencil

Q: Do you enjoy POIs?

A: Oh yes for sure! But please, for the love of all things good on planet earth, under no circumstances *ever* should you pronounce the word “POI” phonetically in a way that rhymes with words like “toy” or “boy.” Please.

Q: Will you give me an extra speaker point if I bring you food?

A: I’m actually such a generous person that I’d rather bring you the food! To make sure I’m delivering it to the right place, just shoot me an email with your name, address, preferred type of pizza, social security number, mother’s maiden name, and the name of your first pet.

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!

I care deeply about warrant strength and will intervene against over-claimed impacts. Please avoid theory and be reasonable.

Conflicts: Trinity School

I have been a Parliamentary debater since high school I am heavily involved in public speaking. I want to see a clear frame from the start (for both sides) and see a strong impact on every contention. Always warrant and warrant well. I really need the summary speeches to show me where the clash is in the round and tell me why I'm siding with your team under the frame. Everything should be extremely well signposted, I will write something if I know what it is responding to so please be clear in your arguments.

Some things that I will do (credit to Ryan Lafferty):

“Spreading” is something you do with softened butter on warm rolls, not something you should be doing in a debate speech

If I hear you double-breathing to accommodate your fast speaking, I will assume you are having a medical emergency and call 9-1-1

If you say phrases such as “cap K,” “friv T,” or “K Aff,” I will assume you are talking about some musician’s stage name that I am simply not aware of

If you use any jargon-y abbreviation I am unfamiliar with, I will Google that abbreviation and use the first search result to evaluate your argument. For instance, if you use the abbreviation “ULI,” I shall Google “ULI” and see that “ULI” refers to the “Urban Land Institute;” then do my very best to understand how your argument connects back to said institution

My name is Walker Montgomery.

I debated for four years and went too nationals twice in Public Forum. I broke too round 12 in my senior year and round 10 my junior year. I went to camp each summer.

So I understand and can follow fast speaking and flowing. I understand how PF works so don't try to pull anything crazy.

Other than that I don't follow any specific paradigm. Each round is different and I will judge based on who has the better case and arguments.

Good Luck!

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

Hi I'm Kiran! I'm a junior at Stuyvesant High School in NYC, and am a second-year parli debater.

I typically try to judge off of the flow as much as possible, and remain tabula rasa. You are the debaters, I am here to judge, not to bolster one side or the other.

Some other things to consider when I am judging you:

- Definitions are not able to be changed mid-round. If a definition is abusive, then the opposition will make an abusive call in their own first speech. The opposition must, however, debate under the initial definitions laid out by the government. In addition to argumentation guiding me on the definitions debate, the opposition showing me that the definitions do not allow a reasonable path to victory by debating their very best and still falling short only bolsters the strength of the abusive call.

- Examples are almost always secondary. This means that examples cannot be used as warranting for a claim, and a claim warranted entirely through examples is equivalent to a claim which is not warranted at all. This also means that pointing out a lack of examples in your opponent's case, or refuting their examples is not the same as refuting their warranting. Focus on engaging with the logic!

- Be creative! The most fun rounds to both judge and debate are the ones which aren't super bog standard. While it's certainly not required, and I don't want you to run a weird case if you aren't able to properly create a case out of it, or warrant it out, I definitely encourage you to think outside the box!

- As always, be respectful!

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!

Background: I've debated for 8 years between high school and college (since 2015), mostly in Extemp & Amercian Parli. I have tons of experience competing, judging, and running tournaments.

Paradigm: Arguments that focus on weighing and logic are more persuasive than those that rest on statistics. Statistics are often biased; logic stands the test of time. I heavily value weighing mechanisms in rounds. A debater with a consistent vision in a round that carries through in all speeches is most effective. Accordingly, rebuttal speeches are very important and should consist of much more weighing than further argumentation. Really take the time to explain why your argument leads to a better outcome than your opponents'. This means that constructives should be extremely well-organized and easy to follow to set up rebuttal speeches in a way that does not make the round messy.

Other miscellaneous things:

1. Definition debates are the worst, I generally err on the side of gov/aff unless there is good reason not to (usually abuse that is called out by opp/neg);

2. Treat everyone in your rounds fairly and do not belittle arguments or speakers. Remember why debate is important: for education & in order to have a constructive conversation -- no side is inherently better than another;

3. Spreading is fine but signposting is always important (if you want to make sure I flow it--signpost it!) Everything you are going to complain to your team that I missed on the van ride home should have been in your voters.1;

4. And finally, theory shells should only be used if absolutely necessary and reasons for doing so should be explained in ways that apply to the specific round at hand (and not to all rounds in general).

Good luck!

Easter egg: If you use the phrase "dandy" in one of your speeches I will take that to mean that you read my paradigm and will be more inclined to bump your speaks. :)2

1 credit: preston bushnell & 2 inspired by: cara weathers

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

I am a parent judge, and indeed judging at NSDA Quals on Feb. 1, 2019 will be (I am writing this on Jan. 31, 2019 so it will be "was" after that date) my first time to get involved in a tournament. But I hope to get more involved. I went to Harvard Law School and now practice law a corporate lawyer. I value clarity of thinking, on point communication, and persuasive delivery. You can speak fast, but you need to be clear and on point, not rambling or unnecessarily wordy. I also value a good demeanor, especially during crossfire. You got to not interrupt your opponents and also let them answer the questions you ask.

I take notes, but I will focus on substantive arguments. You can rely on some authority, but the key is to articulate the arguments you can extrapolate from such authority, instead of just mentioning about those names.

The side with logical coherence, clarity, persuasiveness and substance is the one I vote for in the end. Focus on making arguments logically sound. Pay attention to the flow of arguments.

At the end of the round, please make sure to clearly tell me why the arguments you think you're winning are more important than the arguments your opponents might win. If you don't clearly compare these impacts you leave it open for me to do, and you may not like the result.

Thanks, and have a great tournament!"

Email chain: syangedgemont@gmail.com

Debated PF at Edgemont HS in NY for 4 years, currently a first year out.

Basics:

As long as you are willing to risk me missing a response/argument, go at any speed you’d like as long as you are clear, but don’t spread. Tech > truth. If an argument is dropped, the link is true for the purposes of the round. Walk me throughout the entire link story to win the argument. COLLAPSE and WEIGH. I may actively call for evidence at the end of the round to discourage any misconstruing of evidence. If it's not in the final focus, it won't be in my ballot either. I look for the easiest path - the cleanest link with the most important impact. The cleaner the link, the more of the impact/weighing that I grant you. This means that winning the link debate should be your highest priority with me (ofc don't forget to do comparative weighing if both sides end up with offense).

Specifics:

- I’ll say "clear" if you are going too quickly/I can’t understand you. If you can't understand your opponents, you should also shout "clear." I will expect both teams to accommodate the speed/comfort level of both me and the other team.

- I've never had any experience with theory or Ks. Don’t run any progressive arguments in front of me.

- Tech over truth. If you have good warrants and good evidence, I'll buy just about anything. It is YOUR responsibility to call the other team out on BS arguments. That being said, the crazier the argument, the more my threshold for responses will decrease. Debate is educational, and I should be hearing arguments that are primarily realistic. I try to be as noninterventionist as possible - even if someone is reading an abusive argument you have to call them out on it.

- Signposting is important to help me keep my place on the flow. I like numbered responses.

- Extensions: I don't evaluate things that aren’t extended in both summary and FF. People are super lazy with their internal warrant extensions. Every single link in the argument must be extended. If both teams don't have a completely extended argument after FF - I will default which argument has a more "complete story"

- Terminal defense is sticky if not frontlined in summary for both sides. Turns that aren't extended in summary but in FF act as terminal defense

- 2nd rebuttal needs to be at the very least a 1-3 split. There needs to be time spent frontlining. 2nd speaking advantage is so large that I prefer a 2-2 split. Turns must be responded to in 2nd rebuttal or they’ll be conceded.

- If something is conceded or you want to bring up an important point from cross, blow it up in a speech.

- if both teams want to skip grand cross that's good with me

- wear whatever you want to online rounds

Evidence:

- I HATE misconstrued evidence. I will tank your speaks if you read intentionally misconstrued evidence (e.g. One team I judged literally added in a word to change the meaning of the evidence). This may also result in an entire argument being dropped – meaning it could cost you the round.

- While I am noninterventionist in big picture argumentation, I may call for multiple pieces of evidence. This is to encourage educational debate that is built on actual research and discourage mishandling of what qualified authors say. This is not to say that evidence is more important than warrants, but evidence is used to magnify the claims you make and make the argument much more convincing. Misconstruing evidence attempts to circumvent actual argumentation. No, this doesn't mean throw cards at me in rebuttal - I still value responses that are logical.

- Warranted evidence > warrants > unwarranted evidence > assertions

- I’ll boost your speaks by 0.5 points if you read non-paraphrased cases. Just show me beforehand.

- I call for evidence in a couple scenarios:

o Someone tells me to read it during a speech

o There is substantial time spent in the round over what it says

o Something sounds super fishy

o The way you portray the evidence seems to shift as the round progresses

- You have one minute to pull up evidence your opponent calls for

Lastly, remember to have fun and don't stress! I'm a chill judge, and you'll be fine if you screw up a little bit. Let me know if you have questions after round and you can shoot me an email at syangedgemont@gmail.com or message me on FB.