Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 3-4 years.

DECISION:My decision evaluates all scopes of the debate: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence, links, etc. However, telling me why your IMPACTS are important and how you better achieve them than your opponent is key for you to win this debate. I do not care about what kind of impacts you give me, but it would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize with broad ones so I know where you are deriving your impacts from.

FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis, however, I prefer OVERVIEWS (not only in your 2ars or 2nrs) because they clear things up for me and make the ballot easier too.

OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD . If you speak marginally fast or faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY because I will probably not understand it or flow it. By chance if I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate and I will probably just ignore it.

HAVE FUN DEBATING ;)

I am primarily an IE judge, and my Lincoln Douglas judging experience is more limited--though I do enjoy the intellectual challenge that LD judging offers.

When I do judge LD I try to base my evaluation on real-world effectiveness, rather than the strict formalism of the LD "game." I'm a reasonably well-informed adult American, often with a personal interest in the issue at hand. You'll win if you present a clear roadmap and conceptual framework, connect the dots both causally and with concrete evidence, and satisfy my intellect while also making an emotional connection. Ultimately, was yours the more compelling argument?

Some suggestions:

* Limit your affirmative argument to your strongest two or three points. I dislike the kitchen-sink approach, mainly because it dilutes the effectiveness of your main thrust. What is your primary value? Really, will "spreading" enable you to sway people's hearts in the real world?
* Use economy of words. At Gettysburg, Edward Everett spoke for two hours before Lincoln said his 264 words. Which speech do you remember?
* Slow down. You've repeated these arguments in practice until they begin to lose their meaning, but this may be the first time I've thought about the issue. I won't be persuaded if I can't keep up with the thread of your argument.
* Silence isn't your enemy. Punctuate your most important points with pauses to give them time to sink in.
* Don't condescend to me by pointing out when your opponent drops an argument. I probably recognized the drop, and if I didn't it doesn't help your cause to highlight my ignorance.
* Use humor and gravitas effectively. I'm a human being not a robot; find ways to make an emotional bridge to your argument. Why should I care?

I am an LD debater from the distant past (2009-2012). I did 4 years of high school debate and coached Palo Alto for 4 years as well.

I'm not up to date with all the fashionable arguments and I'm a little rusty in terms of flowing speed, so go easy on me and explain your args. Other than that, I don't have strong preferences. I'm happy to go along with whatever the debaters tell me to do. If I had to pick a favorite style, I'd pick framework debate with strong warrants and good explanation of how fw interacts with the arguments in the round.

I did LD for 4 years in High School. I debated Parli and Worlds (BP) at UC Davis.

I've been out of debate since I graduated (2013), so here's a rough update of my preferences.

Speed: I haven't flowed in years. Go as fast as you want, but know this: I'll yell clear once and you won't be penalized. If I have to yell a second time your speaks are taking a hit. After that it's up to you to realize if I'm flowing or not. 

Also, SLOW DOWN for all the key bits - taglines, plantexts, CP texts, etc. 

I'm not well-versed in philosophy, so don't assume I know who you're citing or their general argument. 

Theory - In-round abuse only. Competing interps vs. reasonability isn't going to get my vote.

Framework - I weigh the round through the lens I am provided. Which means you need to show why you're winning your framework and why your impacts still win through your opponents framework. If you want a different lens, spell it out for me. 

Basically, I'll vote off whatever makes it onto my flow that isn't just blipped. 

Speaks:

-Be nice (don't be shady in CX, be courteous to everyone, etc.)

-Be clear (including your presentation during CX)

I am a parent or lay judge, a low form of life just above single-cell.

In policy judging I pay attention to the stock issues.

I am interested in clashes and how they turn out, if the clash is substantive and is clearly connected to the resolution. I don't like judging rounds with no clashes where AFF and NEG talk past each other.

If you have a counterplan it must negate the resolution. If it is simply a better idea affirming the resolution, the round is simple for me - AFF wins because both sides are arguing AFF.

I favor claims with evidence. I prefer quantitative evidence to non-quantitative, and am open to hearing why your evidence is more on point than your opponent's.

I am open to kritik and theory but will reject most of it. I count frivolous and weak arguments (including kritik and theory that I think are very weak or far-fetched) as weighing in the opponent's favor, ie I don't simply discard them but view them as losses to that side.

An unanswered strong argument will influence me greatly. But, if you drop a very weak argument or element of an argument, particularly if your opponent made several arguments and you spent your time rebutting the more valid ones, I will mostly ignore the very weak argument and the fact that you dropped it.

I am open to some narrative but not to the exclusion of evidence etc.

I weigh ad hominem attacks including offensive diction as in the opponent's favor, or in extreme cases as deciding the round.

I am tolerant of going very slightly over time limits such as finishing a sentence but not more.

I flow; I am OK with moderate spreading but not 300wpm. I am also ok with persuasive speeds; in the case of persuasive debate I will weigh the argumentation, and will consider intonation, inflection, diction, clarity etc (along with artfulness of cross-ex) for speaker points but not for deciding the round.

I like signposting (remember I am just barely multi-cellular) and explicit linking. I will do my best to *not* fill in the blanks if there is a linkage you should have made, but didn't explicitly; I won't count it against you, but not for you either. When in doubt, draw the dotted line for me.

thanks for debating.

Quick Summary - Run whatever you want, be clear. It's your round, take advantage of it! Flow judge, give me articulated arguments. Kritiks are appreciated, warrants are awesome and taglines are not enough. The squo is more scarier now than ever - tell me whatever I can do to make debate a welcome space for you.

Background -

NPDA Debate - 3 years - Enough tournaments and practice to be very familiar with pretty much anything you can throw at me in the debate space.

Judging for 3 1/2 years - judged parli, policy and LD a lot (and I.E.s but whateverrr)

Approach to Judging -

-I am pretty tabula rasa, within reason. I default to reasonability inmost debates unless there is framework that asks me to change my perspective.

-I like high-probability, systemic impacts first and foremost. Give me real warrants and evidence and ANALYSIS I can weigh and you'll find my ballot favorable. I will vote on any framing though.

-I am a flow judge. I always walk the path of least intervention and won't extend or make arguments for you. Give me voters to refer to and it'll make my life easier. I'm really serious about this.

-I love anything kritikal, but it isn't necessary. I like topical and non-topical affs, but be careful with ID tix and other super generic non-topical advocacies. I like straight-up policy cases with advantages and DA's and the like. I like contentions with good framework articulated. Essentially, you can do anything if you do it well and make it easy for me to follow.

-I need articulated impacts, and arguments in general. Taglines are not enough. Explain to me the directionality and extent of your impacts.

-I don't like arguments dropped in member speeches to be suddenly voters in rebuttals AKA shadow extensions but people need to point of order it for me to not evaluate it.

-Let me know if there's anything I can do to make the debate space more inclusive for you. If you have any needs or preferences, I'm happy to help.

Argument Prefs -

Framework - I will evaluate the round as you want me to as long as you win framework. I do default to net benes/util, but am totally open to other ways of viewing the round.

Spec -I think spec arguments are rough to win, but I'm open to them. Give me solid standards and proven ground loss and I might pick you up on it.

Topicality - I don't like time-suck T's, and I think that a lot of T arguments don't actually really impact the debate except to inhibit clash. I have a medium threshold for T. You need articulated ground loss usually. However, if you drop it, or any a-priori arguments, you're going to lose the debate. Just be careful.

CPs - Always a great idea. I think CP's are super underused and really effective. I like PIC debates and if you run a CP, you just need to be careful about mutual exclusivity. I don't have a problem with condo CPs.

RVI's - I will vote on them, but only for a good reason i.e. rhetoric in the procedural/DA/whatever, timesuck arguments that are fully fleshed out, etc. Just like all other arguments, if it's blippy I probably won't vote on it and your time is probably better spent elsewhere.

Perms - Always go for the perm. I think the Opp has to really win the perm doesn't function to have a good shot in the round because it is often one of the easiest places to vote.

Kritiks - I like K's! I don't have a ton of background knowledge on some kritiks but have run a lot of Nietzsche, some D&G, Baud, Wilderson, but not enough of any lit other than Nietzsche that I feel confident with, so you need to explain it to me thoroughly. Any form, whether it's performance, rhetoric or otherwise, I am totally cool with. Be careful of overly-generic links.

Performance Prefs -

-I personally can handle speed as long as it's clear, but if your opponents clear or slow you, I expect you accommodate them. Additionally, attempting to spread opponents out of the round will destroy your speaks.

-I couldn't care less if you sit or stand - it's your space, make yourself comfortable

-Partner communication is fine, verbally or through notes, as long as you aren't puppeting. I will only flow what the designated speaker says.

-I don't have an issue with sass or playfulness, but don't be mean to your opponents or partner. There's a fine-line between the two and if you have trouble walking it, I'd be nice to be safe.

-Use your time as you wish, but try not to be too repetitive.

-I don't think you need to yell or be overly angry to try to project confidence. At the same time, you do you.

-If you are being sexist, racist or generally a jerk, your speaks will absolutely reflect that. You don't need to tread on eggshells, but don't be a misogynist, racist person.

1. I am speech couch that's been debate adjacent
2. I vote on the cleanest argument that makes sense, has evidence, links reasonably to an impact
3. If nothing makes any sense or proven true, I default to negative

Parent Judge with little debate experience in work-life :-)
I am a traditional judge ONLY and do not understand circuit argument and spreading.

I'm a Software architect with very deep and equally wide experience in cluster-based storage/file system technologies. If that does not make sense, think of the data consumption needs of supercomputers or backends of facebook, Yahoo and google that you use everyday. You can learn more about me as a professional at LinkedIn

I have two kids who have done debate in high school, younger one is still in sophomore. My judging experience time-wise is not as long, though it has been super rich in experience where I have judged LD, Congress, and Public Forum. In my short tenure, I have judged final rounds, been officially challenged on my decision and debaters challenging key evidences. The decision challenge (4th round) was an interesting experience in learning how hard it might be for some folks to lose and come up with biased reasoning why a judge was biased. I was thrilled to discover the debater I voted for ended up winning all six rounds and challenger went onto winning  5-1

The reason for that background is that I'm highly logical and strictly follow arguments flow  as run by the debaters. This means I will view  your evidences, arguments and refutations exactly as you present them (I will not read your data, unless there is an exception). So its important that you speak in a manner that is crisp, clear, comprehensible and respectful. Make it easy for me to compare and contrast your position against your opponent's. The better I understand, easier it gets for me to do my job. Do not leave a lot of post debate thinking to your judges. I must admit that sometimes it is very hard to vote and then I lean on finer elements like the "value criteria" I have chosen to go along, strength of the argument/rebuttals and most importantly quick-thinking/adaptation demonstrated.

The most important is that I personally view this as a learning opportunity and to that end I go extra mile to provide meaningful feedback to each debater regardless of my vote. Having lived long enough, I now know that I'm quite critical in constructive way. So you will get enough from me for ongoing improvement. Also, I try very hard to be aware of my sub-conscious biases and preferences and cast them away by second guessing and questioning my own line of reasoning to rest the case purely based on your very own presentation.  

So its your debate, your performance is the single most critical factor in the outcome, as I leave everything at the door except my pure intellect to process only what you present. 

Relax, enjoy the round and be in the moment and trust that your preparation will rescue you.

hello!!! [she/her] :)

i've been doing speech (and only speech) for three years, so you can bet that i am pretty unfamiliar with debate. but just some general things to help me out since i'm pretty inexperienced:

-please do not talk super fast or spread, i will probably have a hard enough time keeping up at normal speed

-signpost!!! clarity is very nice and cool

-don't be mean or rude -- it does not look good

-more speaker points if you are funny or you crack a joke :D (trust me, my sense of humor is so bad i will laugh at basically anything)

-i will be Lost most of the time so please be patient and help me out if i do something wrong (which i am bound to do)

-please enjoy this image for reading my paradigm:

https://64.media.tumblr.com/9f8bd0d27a40197e6d02d253574ead2c/tumblr_nhoy3yA27u1sxjko8o1_500.jpg

-i hope that you have a cold pillow to sleep on tonight, thank you very much :]

parent judge. speak VERY slowly. make me convincingly understand why your impacts matter more. (weigh)

Congress Paradigm - I have been judging congress on a national level for over 30 years and look to the following criteria when judging competitors.

I appreciate the debate element of congress but there is a difference between congress and debate. I look for focus on the key issuesrather than speed and coverage of all issues raised. Empirical evidence is crucial when it comes to persuading on policy issues that have the potential to impact millions of lives. I appreciate good rhetoric but it is no substitution for real analysis and evidence. If you are speaking later in the round, I will look for crystallization and the bringing to light and analysis of the key issues in the round.

Never forget you are a legislator and this should be evident in your arguments, language and decorum.

Laura Harvey, Jesuit High School

Background: Four year Policy debater in high school, four year Parli debater in college, 20 years coaching debate and IEs. Ten years as head coach at Jesuit High School in Carmichael, CA. I've judged final Policy, Parli, LD and PF rounds at invitationals and national tournaments.

PARLI PARADIGM:

With a policy topic, I am largely a policy maker with stock issue leanings. I want the arguments to be topical, the reason for the plan to be clear (significancy), whatever is keeping the status quo from working to be resolved (inherency), the plan to actually solve the problem (solvency), and for advantages to outweigh disadvantages. In essence, consider me a member of Congress hearing arguments for a plan of action. In my eyes, all debates start from the same basic place: there is a problem. It's a big problem. The status quo is not addressing the problem. This is how we fix it.

Topicality: Both teams need to define and adhere to an interpretation that (1) remains true to the basic intent of the resolution--if the topic is about conserving the oceans, I don't want to hear about space aliens, and (2) gives both sides grounds to debate. I will vote on topicality violations, but only if the given definitions leave the opposing team little room to debate, and/or clearly do not remain true to the perceived intent of the resolution. If you choose to run a topicality resolution, argue why it's a violation (e.g. it skews ground), and present a more fair alternative.

K Arguments: I'm not a fan. They're rarely run well. I've voted for them, but they MUST be specific to the debate at hand. ONLY use K if the resolution, plan, or CP presumes a blatantly abhorant ideology; otherwise, Ks usually come across as elitist arguments designed to confuse and exclude, which doesn't make for a good debate. Run K if you must, but don't rely on it.

CP: I love CPs.

PERMS: I'm not a fan unless they're properly done. Usually, they waste the opposing team's prep time and first 1NC. That said, the NEG should have made their CP mutually exclusive before running it, having heard the 1AC.

PICs: I really don't like plan-inclusive-counterplans. If AFF argues strategy skew, I'm going to be symathetic.

SPEED: In Parli, DON'T. Seriously. This isn't primarily an evidence based debate. I don't need 18 cards piled up under one argument to vote for you, which was the driving motive behind spreading in the first place. If you wouldn't use this speaking style anywhere except in a high-level debate round, it's likely to annoy me. As an educator, I'm looking for ways that you'll use this experience in the wider world. Spreading would not help you convince a jury in closing arguments or brief your member of Congress before a vote. I understand it's common; that doesn't mean I'm going to perpetuate it. If I have to call "clear," I will take a baseball bat to your speaker points.

Flow: I will flow, cross-apply, and extend arguments. I allow off-time road-maps. Use them well.

Impacts: Please, don't forget these. Tell me why things ultimately matter. (That said, there are a few impacts you will have great difficulty running convincingly, like nuclear war and extinction. I've heard these for twenty years. I just don't buy it.)

Warrants: Don't forget these, either. Seriously. Don't.

NON-POLICY TOPICS: Most of the above applies, but in particular:

Value topics: Make sure your value criterion upholds your value. I will vote for the team that convinces me that their value should take precedence, and upholds it best.

Tag-teaming and Feeding: I'm not a fan outside of Public Forum.

New arguments: I don't protect the flow in varsity rounds (I do in JV rounds). Also, I will be sympathetic to AFF responses to brand new arguments made in the 2NC.

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 judge that has been judging for 5+ years, mostly in debate (Policy). I tend to value stock issues and the affirmative must be able to prove all of them sufficiently in order to win the round and fulfill their burden. I also prefer well reason, clear speech and relevant/recent evidence. I'm not comfortable with speed and please explain all arguments in depth.

Name: Timothy Knox School

Affiliation: Fremont

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 2

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 2

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 1

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum

What is your current occupation? Canvasser

Speed of Delivery: A fast pace is fine, but don't spread. If there are any further questions both teams may read part of an old speech before the round and I'll say so if you're going too fast.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Whatever you believe is the best tactic for the particular debate. I suppose I lean towards big picture.

Role of the Final Focus: Distilling the debate down to the few questions that I should consider in my decision.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: As they say about voting: early and often. Don’t just say “Extend our Johnson 18 evidence” without then clearly articulating what it is in response to or simply the fact that it hasn’t been responded to.

Topicality: I loved debating topicality when I competed in Parli. However, I don't expect nor wish to see it in Public Forum. Unless of course, the other team does do something significantly abusive to warrant it. Please deliver in Interp-Violation-Standards-Voter format.

Plans: This is PF so no. You all should know that.

Kritiks: Same as topicality. F

lowing/note-taking: I flow on paper.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument over style. However, in close rounds style is what will prevail even for flow judges.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? The more speeches it's extended in the more likely I'm going to weigh it in my final decision. If an argument isn't extended in summary, I likely won't vote on it. I don’t find rebuttal to FF extensions to be convincing.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? I don't require but recommend it when reasonable.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Unbelievably unlikely. Arguments that are extended throughout the debate even if won only marginally will be preferred. There’s an exception if both teams then run it as a voter.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. "Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out." - Dr. Mungin my professor.

I'm open to hear all types of arguments and prefer to vote for teams that have the better analysis and impact calculus.  Don't assume me to be an expert on every peice of literature that exists.  You need to explain how your arguments function in the round.  I keep a decent flow, but dont sacrifice clarity for speed-it a surefire way to lose a round.  Trust me I have been there before, in my competitve days.  

Ultimately the round is yours, everything is debatable.  Have fun!

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

I've been judging lay debate for two years. I'm fluent enough to understand terms like "extend across the flow", but make sure to explain everything when making arguments. I'm fairly competent at flowing, but going too fast means that I'm not able to write everything down. On the topic of speed, please slow down! Speak as you normally would, but anything faster means I either won't be able to understand it or flow it. 

Please keep it simple in terms of non-specalized arguments. Reword anything like a DA or K to a contention and make sure to explain it very clearly (if you still think that's the best strategy). Any philosophical debate outside the areas of Util and Deont will need explaining. 

Just be a nice person in round. I prefer quality over quantity, so arguments need to be well developed and thoroughly explained in order for me to vote on them. I have no specific argument preference, but anything explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. is a definite "no-no". 

Roadmap: I love roadmaps, but make sure you aren't using too much time that doesn't count towards your speech.

Extensions: Extend arguments yourself. Don't just tell me the card name; explain the specific piece of evidence. 

Speed: GO SLOW!

FW: Please have a clear framework that's well explained. 

Theory: Don't go here.

Signposting: Do this! It helps me a lot with flowing otherwise arguments just get all jumbled up and mixed together.

Speaker Points: I award speaker points based on clarity. 

Prep: Manage your own prep time with your own timer. 

I have been judging for close to 5 years at several local and state tournaments in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. I judged Public Forum, LD mostly, at Novice JV and Varisty levels.

I am open to any arguments, but the arguments where impacts are shown carry more weightage. Impacts should be significant: that affect big population, health impacts, economy impacts, impacts to human values, safety, etc. The more the evidences is better, extrapolating what happened in the past to the future is ok, as long as it is explained logically.

No offensive comments or remarks during the debates. I like the offline roadmaps before start of each speech. It is good to repeat/summarize what you think is your key point. Please feel free to remind judge what you think is most important to you.

I will be happy to answer any questions before the round starts about my preferences.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

LD: If you are a typical circuit debater, do us both a favor and strike me. If, however, you run cogent, warranted, impacted, and meaningful arguments that you understand, I'm your judge. I can flow/understand relatively fast debate, so that's not an issue as long as your diction is clear. Theory arguments should be a rare exception in rounds and only if one side does something so egregious (like having a standard that the other side has no way of accessing) that the debate can't logically proceed in a fair manner. I will not vote on offensive theory and if your opponent runs an education voter against you if you do, I'll vote for your opponent. I'm not a solely "traditional" judge in the sense that I'm fine with Ks and alternative debating, and I believe that the value/criterion structure muddles more rounds than it clears up but I'm OK with it and most of the rounds I judge have V/Cs in them.

Congress: I was a legislative staffer in the US House of Representatives and believe that Congressional Debate should be a good training ground for future public servants. Thus, I take the event seriously and consider it more of a debate than a speech event. I flow and I look for clash, and both analytical and empirical warrants. It's about quality of presentation over quantity for me, so don't feel obligated to get in the maximum number of speeches unless they're good. Decorum, integrity, and leadership are important to your gaining high ranking on my ballot.

I competed in LD for James Logan from 2010-2014 then coached from 2014-2016. I've been gone from the activity for five years so I'm sure a lot has changed, but I'll try my best to keep up. If you have specific questions, I'm happy to answer them.

A general overview:

I can probably handle some degree of speed but it's been close to six years since I've judged a circuit tournament so take that as you will. Also take into account that since everything is virtual, it will be much harder for me to hear you.

Regardless of how fast you choose to speak, signpost clearly.

If you want something to matter at the end of the round, clearly extend it all the way to your last speech. Even if your opponent dropped it, extend the full argument.

Framework doesn't necessarily need to be a traditional V/VC, but needs to exist in some form for me to evaluate the rest of the round.

I like when debaters tell me exactly how and why I should be voting. Crystallize the debate clearly at the end of the round and tell me exactly why you won.

Weigh your arguments. I hate sitting at the end of the round with a bunch of floating impacts. It will be so much easier for me to vote for you if I don't have to do any of that work for you.

I've never been a huge fan of theory. If you do choose to run it, you better have a very good reason.

I believe spreading in debate has no educational value so I am extremely prejudiced against it.

I am a parent judge. I will try to take notes on key parts or your speeches so please sign post and speak clearly/at a normal pace. I will judge based on 2 key factors:

1. Logic: whichever team has the most logical links between claims and provide reasoning (warranting) behind their claims

2. Weighing: proving which impacts have the most political, health-wise, etc. impact in different ways

Thanks and good luck!

TL;DR: I strongly prefer advantage/disadvantage/counterplan debates. I like theory, just run it well. I don't have a lot of experience with K debate and I don't enjoy it. I default to net bens whenever possible and will vote for most arguments if they're not offensive.

Experience: high school parli, NPDA at SRJC and UNR, NFA-LD at SRJC

General:

I vote on the flow and default to net benefits. I'll call clear and slow but if you don't listen and adapt, that's your issue. Please number and tag your arguments and generally provide structure to your speech and the debate. Temember proper structure of advantages/disadvantages (uniqueness/harms, links, internal links, impacts) as well as procedurals (interpretation, violation, standards, voters).

Preferences: 

I really like advantage/disadvantage/counterplan debate! I prefer probability and timeframe over magnitude, but run whatever you can justify. 

I'm down to listen to any theory debate you want to have so long as it's coherent and justifiable.

On the K: I don't have much direct experience with K debate so don't go your top spead and speak like we're both deep in the lit! I'll vote for whatever I feel wins the round, but I don't enjoy the K because most rounds where I've picked one up in high school, it's been because the losing team was so confused, not because the argument was run well. If you insist on it in front of me, 1) listen to me when I call clear or slow and don't assume your opponent or I know your lit, 2) provide detailed links! 3) provide alt solvency that isn't total bs!! (because it almost always is) 4) have a reasonable framework, tell me what your opponent must do under that framework to win the ballot, and don't drop your framework if it's at all contested. If you're refuting the position then keep the above in mind too.

DEFEND THE RES ON AFF. If you don't defend the res as aff, you need to make it REALLY clear to me how your opponents have equal ground under your framework. If you have a truly legitimate problem with the resolution, then consult with your opponents in prep and choose a new one or something (? consult with the tournament. I'm not responsible for you taking that advice).

If your in-round conduct is offensive, expect your speaker points to reflect that. If you're conduct is horrendous enough I'll drop you, but I haven't had that happen before. If your opponents are offensive, make that a major voting issue. 

In general, I encourage you to make the round entertaining and have fun.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or a specific round, please ask me questions anytime. If you can't find me, facebook me.