SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitational
2016 — Santa Clara, CA/US
Basil Abushama Paradigm
Background & Experience:
4 years of hs parli (circuit and lay, 2x toc champ), some HS policy (circuit), some college NPDA
I am okay with listening to any argument any you should choose to run, provided that you lay out the argument clearly and tells me why it wins you the ballot.
I view high school debate as both a competitive activity for the sake of competition and an arena for students to enrich their education by becoming better thinkers and learning more about the world. As such, I will remove myself from the round as much as humanly possible, and base my decision on my best objective evaluation of the arguments made. I flow very carefully. I will not get in your way, so do what you want argumentatively and you can expect me to evaluate it.
My debate style is pretty diverse — I have a good footing in running and hitting normative topical positions, kritiks, theory, and anything in between. My default layering of the round is that theory comes before the kritik and the kritik comes before case, but, in round, tell me what arguments you want to come first (regardless of if it is the same as my default) as I will not do that work for you.
Weighing is very important to me, so do a good amount of work analyzing the impacts throughout the round, and especially at the end, in the rebuttals. Tell me what impacts matter the most, why they matter the most, and why they win you the round, regardless of the position you’re banking your strategy on.
I'm chill with spreading. I will get down your arguments on my flow and will reward higher speaker points to spreading that is exceptionally clear, easy to follow, and/or engaging to listen to. Pointers:
(1) Slow down for taglines, texts, when you switch to a different sheet of paper or argument, and other important parts of your position as you deem fit.
(2) Try not to slur or be repetitive. Spreading is only strategic if you can do it efficiently and clearly.
(3) Be considerate to your opponents. If they are not familiar with spreading, then try to be inclusive of them. Give them texts, answer their POIs, and try to be accommodating of their requests if they have any. It really sucks to get spread out of a round -- doesn't mean you should not spread, just means you should try to be a good sport about it.
Go for it. I dig it. I ran kritiks quite a bit, and enjoy watching a good kritikal round. I am familiar with most of the authors that debaters commonly cite, like Marx, Nietzsche, Agamben, Foucault, Baudrillard, Wilderson, and the rest of the gang. I’m also chill with performances. If you can surprise me with a kritik that isn’t so common, I’ll be happy and give you props, but explain it well. Regardless of whether or not I know the literature, I will not do work for you filling in arguments, explanations or warrants. Pointers:
(1) Links. Please, run links that interact very specifically with the affirmative position. A few safe generic links are okay, but don’t bank entirely on them. If you can’t come up with any specific links, that means one of two things: one, you aren’t familiar enough with your kritik, or, two, the kritik doesn’t apply well. Both are not good positions to be in.
(2) Alt & Alt-Solvency. Explain what your alternative does and how it solves for the impacts you outlined in the rest of your K.
(3) I think framing on the K is pretty important, so don’t skate over that part and assume I’ll just give you reasons why the K comes first. Tell me through what lens I should evaluate the round and why. Again, I will not do work for you on the K.
I ran K-Affs a few times and have hit them plenty of times. I’m okay with them. Just make sure justify them well, as you should with any kritikal position.
I also dig theory. I ran theory quite a bit, from your standard shells to some more out-there shells. Although I view theory as a way to check against real abuse, I’ll listen to and vote for any shell if you win the flow. Pointers:
(1) I default to competing interpretations.
(2) Be very clear and specific with your interpretations. I will take interpretations literally, meaning, if the other team manages to find a lawyer-esque way to meet your interpretation and its logically valid, I will not give much credence to a backtrack along the lines of “well, you know what we meant.”
(3) Ground is the most important standard to me, as it is kind of an umbrella for all fairness-related standards. However, you should still weigh your standards if you want to win the theory debate.
(4) I will not do work for you on the evaluation of the theory. If you want theory to come first, tell me that and tell me why.
(5) I have a lower threshold to voting on RVI's than most judges, but still have a pretty high threshold. You'd have to do a lot of pretty compelling work on the RVI to use it to get the ballot.
Straight Up Case Debate:
I very much enjoy a well-informed and thought out, normative, topical debate. Well constructed, intrinsic advantages and disadvantages, impact framing from the get-go, and smart strategies increase your chances of getting my ballot. Brink scenarios are almost always more compelling than linear advantages/disadvantages, and try to get your arguments to go in the right direction from uniqueness to links to impacts.
I’m okay with CPs that change implementation methods, conditionality, dispositionality, and PICs.
Even flow debate, at its core, is a persuasive activity. Treat it as such. Don’t completely brush off presentation — a confident portrayal of an argument makes it much more appealing to a judge.
I am okay with tag-teaming, just don’t go overboard about it.
Other Key Points:
(1) I like gutsy strategic moves. However, don’t just make a gutsy move for the sake of making a gutsy move, because while I will be amused and pleased, I will not vote for you if it doesn’t win you the round.
(2) Add some personality, and be yourself. You’re real people speaking to real people — rounds that feel like that are more engaging to watch and partake in, in my opinion.
(3) If you kick something, kick it properly by extending defense. I won’t shadow kick for you if the other team calls you out on the shadow kick.
(4) Be good people. It'd be nice to see the debate community try to spread some love.
Mohammed Afzalzadeh Paradigm
Ali Ahmed Paradigm
Angela Akiyama Paradigm
Miguel Alfaro Paradigm
Rafael Alva Paradigm
Sareetha Amujala Paradigm
Sareetha Amujala Paradigm
Deanna Atassi Paradigm
Hakju Au Paradigm
Sean Bandarkar Paradigm
Allison Banisadr Paradigm
I am a parent judge. I understand debate and have been judging at and attending tournaments for years. That said, please don't get too technical when debating because I am not experienced as a debater myself. I'd prefer that you signpost so I'm clear about your points and where you are in speaking about them. I also prefer that you speak slowly enough for me to follow your arguments and logic. When debating, do what you think is most appropriate for the debate and I will judge accordingly. I definitely prefer debates where each team/person directly addresses the points/arguments of his/her opponent and weighs impacts for me.
Most importantly, enjoy your debates.
Ram Bharadwaj Paradigm
Anjali Bhugra Paradigm
Eric Biland Paradigm
Vasudha Bose Paradigm
Hans Chan Paradigm
Silvana Chang Paradigm
Hi! I'm Silvana, and I'm a debate parent.
I have only judged a few debate rounds in the past, so I don't have too many preferences. I don't like perms, K's, or anything out of the blue. Ask POI's! And take POI's as well! Don't be condescending, and please talk at a reasonable speed. Good luck :)
Ruby Chen Paradigm
Stephen Chen Paradigm
Jane Cheng Paradigm
Pratap Chillikanti Paradigm
Hoon Choi Paradigm
Claudiu Cismaru Paradigm
Anthony Colbert Paradigm
Kaitlin Coltin Paradigm
Regina Conway Paradigm
Veranita Darmawan Paradigm
Kayshav Dattatri Paradigm
Karanbir Dhillon Paradigm
Michael DiMartino Paradigm
Rajul Doriwala Paradigm
Tom Eilerts Paradigm
Amy Elzarka Paradigm
I did pf for 4 years completed on the national circuit.
Warrant every argument you make, and don’t expect your opponents/judge to take it at face value.
Weigh the round so I don’t have to, by the end of the second final focus it should be pretty clear who I am voting for because the debaters evaluated the round and condescend it for me. You don’t want to be in the position where I am left at the end of the round weighing arguments for you and putting the decision in my hands.
If you’re gonna spend 30+ seconds of your speech on framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what u gain/opponents lose. Speeches in public forum are too short for you to waste your time debating framework if winning it makes no difference on the overall decision.
Don't take 20 minutes to find your evidence, you should pre flow before round and not take the scheduled time to do that.
Debate style: I am open to anything. If you’re going to talk fast you need to be clear and sign post properly or it will work against you. Be respectful to one another, you can be assertive and make points without being rude.
Rosemary Endick Paradigm
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.
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.
Shahram Farazi Paradigm
Benny Feng Paradigm
Eric Figueroa Paradigm
Alan Fishman Paradigm
TL:DR for LD: Theory is my favorite type of debate, and I'm most familiar with util and critical positions because of my background in NPDA-style college parli. I am also willing to listen to phil, nibs, and anything except lay/traditional debate.
I am open to all types of plans and frameworks, and also to theory against them. I am open to all theory arguments, including RVI's, OCI's, metatheory, and arguments that are unique to LD. I try not to be predisposed for or against any particular theory position, and I enjoy listening to unusual theory arguments.
Please include me on the email chain if there is one. firstname.lastname@example.org
I give high speaks to everyone who does tech/circuit-style debate unless they say something truly offensive, and I give lower speaks to lay/traditional debate.
TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. Make the debate technical and tell me why you're winning. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. I don't like value rounds and I literally hate fact rounds, run policy or a K aff on every res. Please DO NOT make arguments in POI's by saying things like "don't you know" or "isn't it true...", every time you make an argument in a POI instead of asking a question I'll drop a speaker point and I'm very open to voting on theory against it. Don't shake my hand after the round.
I am in my fourth year of collegiate NPDA debate and my second year of college NFA-LD. I prefer flow or circuit-style debate and I'm easily bored by lay case debate. My main priority when judging is to approach the debate objectively and leave my personal opinions out of the round. I will listen to all arguments and also to reasons why any type of argument shouldn't be included in a specific debate format. I try to be a blank slate when possible, but I don't believe any judge is a complete blank slate. DON'T watch my nonverbals - I think that deliberately giving nonverbals is interventionist and if I give them unintentionally you might read them wrong. Focus on the arguments that are being made in the round, not my body language. I hold the unpopular opinion that parliamentary debate is NOT a public speaking event, but a game that happens to use public speaking, and as such, I do not care about presentation and delivery. I do not think that your speaking style or presentation is part of your actual skill as a debater - as long as I and your opponents can follow what you're saying you've communicated well enough. I do not care about politeness, just don't be cruel or dehumanizing to your opponents. I like procedurals, kritiks,and elaborate policy neg strats better than traditional case debate. I do not time roadmaps, but I DO time thank yous. I do allow debaters to give content warnings off time before their speeches, and I ask that they do so if they have reason to think that something in their speech could be triggering - I know of many people in the forensics community with PTSD who have been affected by competitors who did not, though I do not need them for myself, I believe in making debate more accessible.
CASE/DA: I am fond of good substantive debate. Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the game of debate. I like you to have strong impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why the economy matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of a link. While I think defense is useful for mitigating the other side's impacts so you can outweigh with your own, but I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. I often read econ and heg arguments, and I also think advantages and disadvantages with specific links to the actor can be quite useful. Politics was never my favorite DA but I think it's often strategic and I'll vote on it if you win it on the flow - I am not eager to hear the same midterms scenario every round but I won't intervene against it.
SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. In all forms of carded debate, I have a very high threshold for abuse on speed theory/K for arguments that were included in a speech doc that was shared with me and the other team. I do not give a flying F-spec about clarity if I have a speech doc I can follow along with. In general, if I am going to vote on an argument against speed, you need to prove that you asked your opponents to slow down and they did not. If you do ask your opponents to slow down, NEVER say "Clear", always say "slow" instead. As hard as it is to establish a brightline for speed, it is impossible to establish a brightline for clarity. I do not mind if you exclude lay/traditional judges from the round with speed though - judges are paid or have other motivations to be here. If you do run an argument against spreading, I want to hear why spreading is unfair or exclusionary to you, in this debate round, or why refusing to slow down when asked is a bad norm for the activity. I'm unlikely to vote on the idea that one way of speaking is inherently "better" than another, and I actively HATE the argument that debate should be held to IE/speech-style standards of communication. I also believe that it doesn't matter whether debate is understandable to laypeople in the audience - your words only need to be understood by the other team.
THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I will even vote on PMR/2AR theory if there is an egregious violation in the MOC/NR that did not happen in the LOC/NC. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation. I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them, and I will not intervene against a dropped RVI. I do not need reasons why fairness and education matter unless you are comparing them to something else or to one another. I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. I default to drop the debater if you read voters and drop the argument if you don't. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. On extra-topicality, I am very reluctant to allow the aff to sever out of extra-topical parts of the plan.
Rules are NOT a voter by themselves, and I rarely read the rules of events that I judge. If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate. In cases of rules violations, I will almost always prefer not to get anyone kicked out of the tournament - even if the rules of the event recommend that as a penalty. Also, if you threaten to report me to the tabroom for not enforcing the rules I will instantly drop you.
COUNTERPLANS: I think that CP's are legitimate in most forms of debate but some CP's are abusive and I have no problem voting on theory against them. PIC's are okay as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. Delay bad is a true argument but I'll probably vote on delay if the AFF doesn't read theory. I’m neutral on conditionality as a judge. Tell me in round whether it's good or bad. I hate dispo in parli and I expect you to provide a detailed definition of it if asked in cx in other forms of debate, and even then, I'd rather see you be condo or uncondo. However, I do not like to "judge kick" counterplans and if the neg doesn't kick the CP/alt in the block I will assume they're going for it, and I like to see them pick whether to go for it.
IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. Timeframe is more of a tiebreaker to me - unless you show how the timeframe of your impact prevents the other impact from mattering. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).
KRITIKS: I’m fine with kritiks of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, and cap. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that framework informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.
REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow. If your opponents make a new argument it is your responsibility to call point of order. I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.
PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it.
DELIVERY/SPEAKER POINTS: I don't care about delivery in debate. I think that there is a place for judging people based on their delivery and that place is in IE's. I will give speaker points based on how good you are at debating and the choice of words you use, not based on who stands up or makes eye contact with me. I will sometimes add speaker points if someone says something really clever or funny (note: I love puns) or take them away if someone says something really offensive or acts disrespectful to their opponents (such as by refusing to take any questions or blatantly insulting them). I believe politeness is an oppressive social construct, so I don't care about how well teams follow social norms, and I dislike performative displays of politeness like asking "how are you?" in cx. I think that "thank yous" are a waste of time, especially at tournaments that are running on a tight schedule - we are all here because we want to be. I am completely fine with partner communication, even if you "rudely" interrupt your partner during their speech. However, I will only flow what the current speaker says.
In lay vs. flow debates, I will almost always vote for whoever is debating flow-style, so if there is a lay judge on the same panel as me in a round with multiple judges, the best way to get my ballot is to punt the lay judge, and even if you don't put the lay judge completely I'll likely reward the team that uses the most tech and jargon. If there is another flow judge and another lay judge on the panel, debating in a fully lay style would basically be punting me (since there are possible compromises between the two extremes). I do not change my judging style based on the other judges in the room - they have their own ballots and if I was do so I would be establishing a panel with unequal voting power. I'm not saying this to be insulting to the preferences of other judges - I'm saying this because it would be a disservice to the competitors if I did not accurately represent how I judge.
Also, I believe that debaters should not wear professional clothes to tournaments because professional dress is a social construct that reinforces privilege. I won't vote you down on my own initiative for it, but I am receptive to arguments about why debaters should not dress professionally. This article describes how I feel about professional dress in speech and debate: https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/02/professionalism-and-oppression/
On a related note, I think that handshakes after the round are a part of harmful politeness norms and I choose not to participate in them, so please do NOT shake my hand after the round. Also, handshakes can spread disease and most of us have a card somewhere that says disease causes extinction.
Some of my pet peeves as a judge:
- When the AFF says they "believe" in the res or the NEG says they "don't believe" in it. You were assigned your side at random.
- When debaters act like they're in an IE/speech event
- When debaters start their speech with a quote
- When NEG says that Trump will roll back the plan
- When anyone calls the debate round a "day" or talks about "today's debate" - it's annoying because there are usually multiple rounds in a day
- Please do not set the criterion to net benefits for one particular country or region (especially in parli). I have a very low threshold for letting NEG win that net benefits should include everyone, and if I have to vote on this kind of criterion your speaks will go down like Bitcoin did last December. However, I am fine with other parametricized forms of net benefits, like structural violence first or extinction first, I just don't think that whether someone's life matters should be dependent on lines drawn on a map.
If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.
Also, if you find me after the round, I'm always happy to explain my RFD in more detail or answer general questions about debate if you have the time. I enjoy giving back to the debate community by helping others learn about the activity.
I feel like the value of debating the topic should be determined by the arguments that are made in round. If the aff is not topical, I will not care unless the neg reads topicality. I do try not to intervene, and I think poorly worded and/or problematic topics are a real problem in parli. If both teams agree to debate a different topic I will allow them to.
If there is no flex you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of a counterplan or alt. Anyone who asks or takes an unnecessary POI in a round with flex will lose a speaker point - I think that keeping POI's intact in a format with flex is rooted in problematic notions of politeness. I don't care about "protected time". I think it's a silly and unnecessary rule. I have no problem with people asking questions in protected time but I won't punish you if you choose to follow protected time.
I think that parli structurally favors MG theory so I believe that MG theory should have a higher threshold than LOC theory, but I won't judge it any different unless the negative tells me why I should, because I dislike intervening.
I do not protect the flow
I do not believe in the trichotomy. I prefer policy rounds to fact and value rounds, and I would rather see you defend a policy than a fact or value statement. If you must avoid debating policy, use value instead of fact. I am much better at judging policy rounds, and I have often felt less confident in my decisions in fact and value debates than in policy debates. I particularly hate fact rounds and I think they have no unique educational benefit because you can debate facts within a policy or value debate. If I have to vote aff in a fact round it will probably be a low point win. If you are going to have a value debate, I prefer you do it in a style that resembles circuit LD, as most people in parli don't do value rounds well.
PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:
I judge PF similar to parli. I do acknowledge that the 1NC doesn't have to refute the 1AC directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments (though you can answer them anytime before FF to have the answer on my flow). I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, topicality, and kritiks. I think there are good arguments for why these arguments should not be in PF, but I won't make them for you - you have to say it in round.
Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. If you want a theory argument or an argument about the rules to be a voting issue, please tell me. Just saying "they are cheating" or "you can't do this in PF" is not enough.
I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. My email is email@example.com
Kim Flores Paradigm
Alex Frogner Paradigm
Esther Fultz Paradigm
Pawan Galhotra Paradigm
Assistant coach for a parli-dominant team. I don't like kritiks nor spreading, and would prefer you stick to the topic with fairly straightforward definitions. Given that it's parli, with limited time for prep, squirrelly definitions are unfair.I'm particularly inclined to neg positions that provide better solvency or address deeper harms that the aff overlooks.
While both are needed, I'll take empirics over interesting logic. Make all the links clear. I vote on the magnitude of impacts. Make them as measurable as possible. The more numbers the better. Take POIs. Humor is appreciated.
Dengfeng Gao Paradigm
Sagar Gattapally Paradigm
Ashwini Gaur Paradigm
Firoz Gill Paradigm
4 years of high school parli, 1 year of NPDA parli
- I am a flow judge.
- I default to comparative worlds and net benefits.
- If I don't understand an argument the first time I hear it, I won't flow it / vote for it
- Voter issues are crucial. Weighing arguments is super important to me. Otherwise, I may have to weigh things myself.
- Most debaters think they can spread, but very few can. Unless you are absolutely certain in your ability to remain crystal clear at high speeds, don’t go over 300 words per minute. Every time I yell “clear!” your speaker points suffer.
- Slow down A LOT on argument taglines, author names, theory interpretations, case theses, K alternatives, plantexts, and CP texts. For the latter three, you should have copies of the text ready for your opponent and the judge.
- I prefer cards to have author qualifications and year read aloud.
- Eye contact doesn't matter, but voice modulation does.
- If you said everything you needed to say, don't ramble to fill up speech time, just sit down.
- Example of a bad NC roadmap: "First, I'll read my NC in which I argue that justice doesn't exist, then an off-case which will be a topicality on "ought", and finally I'll prove why the affirmative case is wrong."
The function of a roadmap is to help me put the pages of my flow in order; any information that doesn't do that is superfluous. An off-case is anything that's not on the affirmative case. NC stands for "negative constructive," not "negative case."
Example of a good NC roadmap: "2 off, AC."
- I will typically give an oral RFD.
- All arguments should have warrants. I will not vote on blips.
- An empirical warrant can appeal to common knowledge, but cards trump common knowledge.
- An analytical warrant does not require a card. A quote from a philosopher may contain a warrant, but simply the fact that some philosopher agrees with you does not constitute a warrant – that’s the “appeal to authority” fallacy. I hold up analytical warrants made by carded philosophers to the same level of scrutiny as analytical warrants made by debaters.
- I like positional cases.
- Weird stuff is great if you can pull it off.
- Critical/discourse cases are fine, but slow down on confusing parts. Specific alternatives with solid solvency are a plus. I tend to buy intuitive answers to Ks.
- Theory is fine if they're actually abusive, but don't overuse it. I tend to buy "reasonable limits" answers to it. I'll vote on RVIs (high threshold). I think theory is a type of a discourse argument (Fairness K or Education K), with violation as the link, standards as the impact, interpretation as the alternative, and voters as the framework. The implication is that theory can be weighed against other discourse arguments. Also, most theory debates are boring (Prefer not to have theory debate).
- The value/criterion model is often abused to exclude relevant argumentation. I think that debate rounds which are more practical are better off with a generic standard without a criterion (as a parli debater, I am used to net benefits) and with impacts weighed out primarily on the contention level; the more philosophical debates should just have the philosophical framework as the standard. I will use net benefits unless you give me good reasons to prefer another standard.
- I won't vote any type of argument down right away, so if you feel confident you can win it, run it, and have fun.
I love good Neg. strategy and think multiple positions (T, CP, K) is a great way to strategize. Also, I love great CPs (especially PICs). I think they're pretty real world and test the Aff plan fully. I am fine with conditional stuff as well. As Aff. make sure you ask if things are conditional or not.
If possible try not to exlclude the other team by spreading. Also, if you do spread through a CP, T, or K it would be helpful for you to give the other team a copy in order for them to better follow along.
I think the Aff. Should limit the resolution in a way that’s beneficial to them. (I’m fine with some Extra T).
Jose Tomas Gomez Arias Paradigm
I have been judging debate and individual events for around 7 years, so I would say that I am experienced. I am a university professor, so make sure your logic is sound. Speed is fine, but make sure you are clear. I will yell clear if you are not clear. Mumbling fast is not the same as speaking fast. I am fine with voting on theory positions, as long as they are warranted in the round and are proven to be voting issues. In my experience, few debaters are able to propperly identify articulated abuse in the round. Most of all, enjoy the round and enjoy the process without worrying about the outcome!
Ivony Gomez-Gonzalvez Paradigm
Peter Gottlieb Paradigm
1. Don't talk too fast; otherwise you give the impression that you don't have full confidence in what you are saying, but are trying to "put something over on me."
2. When you repeat an argument that has been raised previously, please reference it, and the original speaker, so that I can evaluate it in a proper context.
3. Arguments should be supported by facts, where possible, but I deduct severely for incorrect statements. When an argument is contested between sides, the side with the strongest facts wins.
4. When you quote external authority, you must state why that person is qualified on this particular subject.
5. If arguments have similarities, please identify and distinguish them.
Devina Grover Paradigm
Venkat Guntipally Paradigm
Barbara Hamel Paradigm
Alan Hao Paradigm
Laura Harvey Paradigm
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.
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.
Tricia Hawkins Paradigm
Xiaoli He Paradigm
Ramachandra Hegde Paradigm
Ray Herman Paradigm
Moon Hong Paradigm
Warren Horowitz Paradigm
Stacy Houston Paradigm
John Hubinger Paradigm
Arshad Hussain Paradigm
Pacita Ikonomou Paradigm
Parent Judge. No speed or Ks. I appreciate a clear round with plausible impacts.
Chakrapani Innamuri Paradigm
Namita Jain Paradigm
Bre'Anna Jernagin Paradigm
Jenny Jin Paradigm
Sudhakar Kalluri Paradigm
Judge Kamanboina Paradigm
Vellayapan Kannappen Paradigm
Ram Kapoor Paradigm
Rugved Karhade Paradigm
Madeleine Karydes Paradigm
Bottom line, convince me! I never competed in debate - I'm a speech person first and foremost - but I love the passion and intellectual engagement this activity creates. A couple of points that will help me better evaluate you:
- Please tagline and signpost! Make it easy for me to flow. Clearly state your contentions, subpoints, etc.
- Don't spread - you can talk relatively quickly, just not top speed. (Feel free to time yourself in round.)
- Links and impact are important, so try not to drop things on the flow (I won't fill them in for you); tie it up for me. That goes for everything; make your own case for what frameworks/evidence I should be weighing as most important and why.
- On that note, it's your responsibility to explain what violations happen and why they do or do not impact the round.
Most of all, be kind to each other, be passionate, and have fun! Forensics is a constructive and positive space, and in the light of current events please remember to take care of yourselves and speak your truth. If you have any questions or concerns, ask me.
Brian Kenny Paradigm
Shrinath Keskar Paradigm
Saif Khan Paradigm
TL;DR: Tabula Rasa, flow judge but provide clear taglines, will default on net benefits and the flow.
Background/Experience: 3 years HS Parli, 3 years HS Public Forum. Two-time Parli TOC participant and Stanford Parli Champion.
Speed: I can keep up with spreading but I'll shout clear for clarity and loud for sound as needed. Give me CLEAR taglines and slow down before you state them if you're presumably going to run a K, Disad or T.
Philosophy: Structure. Structure Structure.
You can't claim impacts on an argument without providing the proper warrant(s), but don't rely on warrants to be your only source of analysis.
I won't extend dropped arguments for you unless you tell me why they're important in the round.
It's better to finish with extra time at the end of your speech than to go one and say unnecessary things that are only going to hurt your speaks. +1 for insightful POI's, but only ask if they're necessary.
Keep roadmaps brief and offtime; if you don't give me a VC, I'll default to Net Benefits.
Don't forget the voter issues and have fun!
Michael Kim Paradigm
Anagha Komaragiri Paradigm
Ellen Kuo Paradigm
Le LE Paradigm
Dan Leahy Paradigm
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!
James Lee Paradigm
I am a parent/volunteer and I judge at about 10 rounds of Parli debate (Novice and Open levels) each year since 2015.
My preferences -
logical and coherent
specific and persuasive
clear and straight'orward
Roadmapping and signposting at the beginning and during each speech are very much appreciated.
Minsim Lee Paradigm
William Li Paradigm
Yanyan Li Paradigm
Lingxi Li Paradigm
Jing Liao Paradigm
Tienyi Lin Paradigm
Danngis Liu Paradigm
Chuck Liu Paradigm
Yucheng Liu Paradigm
Steven Liu Paradigm
Josh Loftus Paradigm
Grace Lok Paradigm
Sierra Maciorowski Paradigm
TL;DR: call the Point of Order, use impact calculus, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I'll vote where you tell me to. I won't shake your hands but I love you still.
Updates for TOC 2019:
1. Since this is the TOC, I expect my standards will be slightly higher for speaker points—let's say, adjust my scale by about 0.3 points down.
2. For TOC, let's be clear: I have a strong appreciation for both NPDA-style parli and APDA-style parli. Realistically, I believe that the best form of parli is somewhere between APDA Motions and national circuit NPDA. This means the rounds I value most are conversational-fast, full of logic without blips, use theory/abuse arguments when needed, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude (yes, real policy analysts use these too—they are NOT a "flow debate only" thing), and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without a kritik structure.
3. Sorry, this paradigm keeps growing—if there are teams in the field that I am unfamiliar with, I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge. If terms in here are confusing, shoot me a message!
I did high school parli, NPDA, and NFA-LD. I now do APDA + BP at Stanford and coach parli at Mountain View-Los Altos. I've judged 100+ competitive rounds including TOC. Broke to elim 2 at NPDA nats last year with Steven, so I'm not too out of the loop yet! Majoring in English and Human Biology, but I spend my free time reading critical theory.
- Content warnings are good (link).
- Call the Point of Order.
- Debate is a game but should be respectful and educational. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that.
- Your rebuttals should be almost entirely weighing: impact analysis, warrant comparison, and strategic clarification of the round. Analyze how and why you win.
- Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run your stock cases when they don't apply.
- Fine with Ks, theory, and any CPs, but open to arguments against those as well.
- I default to probability in impact comparison and competing interpretations on theory. That means your link stories should be specific and I really like theory when it's good. But default weighing is silly on principle: risk calculus is probability x magnitude, so just do good analysis.
- I don't give a damn if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should come before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".
- Tagteaming and speed are fine, but should be respectful— if you puppet your partner without being asked, I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding. Please don't go fast if you don't have good word economy.
- Blips without meaning won't win you the round— Please, if you do nothing else, justify your arguments: every claim should have a warrant, and every argument should have an impact. The questions I've ended up asking myself (and the debaters) in nearly every round I've judged over the past ~4 years are: Why do I care about that? What is the implication of that? How do these arguments interact? Save us all some heartache and answer those questions yourself during prep time and before your rebuttal speeches.
- Be good to each other. Parliamentary debate is a community that should always expand, not push people out.
- Presumption flows the direction of least change. If you don't have warrants or don't sufficiently compare impacts, I'll spend 5 minutes looking for the winner and, failing that, vote on presumption.
- Theory relies on logic as much as any other argument: have clear standards and weigh them against your opponents'.
- Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased-- and well-adapted to the round at hand.
- On any theory, tell me how and why to evaluate your argument under competing interpretations.
- No need for articulated abuse-- if your opponents skew you out of your prep time, do what you can to make up new arguments in round, and go hard for theory.
- Throwaway theory is fine, but I'll appreciate it more if it sounds serious.
Kritiks + Tech
- General: Ks are fun when well-run, but I tend to drop them because people run them wrong. Don't run arguments you don't understand. Please.
- Familiarity (ADDED 3/20/19): In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me: I have worked with queer theory, crip and disability theory, settler-colonialism, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives, Afrofuturism, biopower, Baudrillard, and securitization in academic settings. Familiar with central theses of anti-Blackness, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, etc.
- I think there are very few teams that will pref me and also plan to spread postmodern things, but I should probably note that if you spread postmodern things at me I will likely get lost and sad. More importantly, this list is more for background info on what NOT to run than what to run—I am not particularly receptive to psychoanalysis, etc, and can provide better feedback on the subjects above.
- Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.
- Conditionality: collapsed debate is good debate. If it hurts your ability to participate in the round, run theory.
- Speed: Don’t spread your opponents out of the round. Period. If your opponents ask you to clear or slow, please do so or risk substantial speaker point losses. I can handle your speed, but if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.
- Rejecting the res (ADDED 11/5/18): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the tag is these days. Generally better to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright.
- Flow: I’ll flow through what you tell me to flow through, and will vote on the flow to the best of my understanding of the round. Overviews and underviews are good. Be clear as to what I'm voting on.
- "Identity"-related kritiks are fine, but please don't make arguments based on your own identity in round nor make assumptions about other people's identities— debate is an inherently weaponized and adversarial space, and it's difficult to bring personal identities into play without risking emotional harm.
- Fine with severance or intrinsic perms if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.
- I'll be as tabula rasa as possible, but if you say things that I know are untrue/misrepresentations, your speaks might reflect that. That being said, I'm aware that I have oddly specific depth of knowledge in certain fields, so if you for some reason mix up the steps of creating a gene drive I'll probably forgive you.
- Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.
- I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the POO. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the POO to avoid intervening.
Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)
I have fairly high standards for speaks— if you pref me low because of that, we're cool, I get it. #inflation
25-26: Offensive, disrespecting partner/other debaters, etc.
26-27: Just not quite a sufficient speech— missing a lot of the necessary components.
27-28: Some missing fundamentals (eg poorly chosen/structured arguments, unclear logic chains).
28-28.5: Average— not very strategic, but has the basics down. Around top half of the field.
28.5-29: Decent warranting, sufficient impact calculus, perhaps lacking strategy. Deserve to break.
29-29.5: Clearly warranted arguments, weighable impacts, good strategy, deserve to break to late elims.
29.5-30: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, win top speaker, and win TOC (unlikely)
I don't care if you talk pretty, stutter, or have long terrified pauses in your speech: I vote on the arguments.
I really have no desire to shake your hands.
Feel free to email me with specific questions at firstname.lastname@example.org or message me on Facebook.
Laura Mahoney Paradigm
I am a parent judge. I have a fair bit of experience judging, starting with middle school debate for two years including nationals. I'm not a flow judge, but I take notes and do my best to follow arguments made, dropped, countered, etc. I'm not into lingo or clever devices. I'm a journalist by profession and cover the California Legislature, regulatory agencies, and various state and federal courts. This means I get paid to listen to people debate or make arguments to me directly every day. When I judge, I want to see a clash on the topic and good critical thinking skills. Convince me that your position is the correct one. It's that simple.
Shri Manduri Paradigm
J McBlair Paradigm
I'm a coach that prefers case debate. I'm generally suspicious of all of your claims, so focus on a few arguments where the logic and empirical support all line up.
A few years of high school LD and Pofo. Five years coaching pofo and parli in the bay area. I’ve judged most styles of debate off and on for over ten years, occasionally at bigger tournaments. I have never been a college debater.
I'm not a blank slate. I speak English and understand many of the shared concepts you need to navigate being an engaged citizen. I read the news and have a decent grip on history. Treat me as an educated adult. Also treat me as someone who has seen enough debate rounds to know that many debaters lie or twist the facts constantly. I will be skeptical of your links and your impacts every step of the way. Make the case for their likelihood. Usually a round comes down to two or three points with me, so quality over quantity should be your mantra. I'm also not an interventionist. I'm here to reward the best debater and won't make arguments on your opponents' behalf. But I have no problem saying that I don't buy an argument, so even when your opponent drops the argument you have to make the case for its likelihood.
Please respect the style. Try to make the exchange of ideas work. Parli is not set up for a good spread round; it’s too messy when it’s done. Running arguments in a way that makes it difficult to understand so you can win because your opponents are unable to respond is elitist and antithetical to an activity that should improve communication skills. And prep time is limited, which means a more narrow view of topicality than policy debate (the style) to keep it fair. In practically all cases I'd prefer you just debate the darn topic. No squirrelly definitions that leave no room for the other side.
POIs are meant to be taken in the middle of your speech (I think about 1-2 POIs per constructive is a good norm), and not “saved for the end if you have time.” Also, POO when necessary, but I also see it as my job as judge to keep track of which arguments are new and not vote on them.
I don’t mind when partners add a quick point either verbally or with paper, but keep it to a minimum. Do not have your partner just repeat what you say for more than a sentence or two.
I like them both. Tell me if your perm is an advocacy or test. I'm probably more open-minded than most about what counts as a mutually exclusive CP.
I like passion, humor, and a no-nonsense style. Thank me once at the end; not every speech. We don’t need to touch hands. Also, read the room: don’t aggressively crush your opponent into oblivion unless they’re willing to do so too. This should be a space for people not trying to verbally body slam each other (and a place where two willing parties can too). Overall, just be polite. This is supposed to be fun.
Philosophy is my lifeblood. I’ve studied it plenty and would rather you not ruin it with your Ks. I can imagine good Ks being run for the right topics, but I’ve definitely never seen them at the high school level. I find them exclusionary and unacademic. However, it’s your debate and if both sides are down to pretend they understand Nietzsche or Foucault or Marx, then fine. But you need to actually explain the theory in your own words and not just with a quick card. However, if talking philosophy actually connects to the topic (instead of avoiding it) then I’m all for it! Again, you need to be able to explain the concept in your own words. I'm also going to be very skeptical of any claim that voting one way or the other will have real world impacts.
I usually don't vote on theory when the case debate has a clear winner. Sometimes I'll let theory win the round if the case debate is very close. The exception to this is when there's an egregious ground skew, when how they're debating has made things really one-sided. But you need to explain to me the actual arguments or facts that your side should be able to make but can't now because of how they're debating. I think theory arguments can be a reverse voting issue if I hear explanation as to how they are their own kind of abuse.
I'm not sure I know what "dehumanization" or "educationality" really mean anymore. You had better explain it to me.
Kristin McDonnell Paradigm
Rajnish Mishra Paradigm
I am not very experienced at judging in debate so please explain all theory arguments to me before you begin and talk slowly! I will especially look for confidence in speakers.
Tim Mitchell Paradigm
Rahima Mohammed Paradigm
Murali Moturi Paradigm
Meredith Mountjoy Paradigm
Judging Background: I competed at both the community college debate level and the 4-year university level and am a current competitor for UC Berkeley. I have 2 years of Parli experience as well as extensive high school judging experience in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Policy. My paradigm will mainly be related to parli, but I have many thoughts on other events, so I’d be happy to discuss them prior to the round. I will always make time for competitor questions.
The TL;DR of my paradigm is that I will vote for just about anything, but I like case a lot, theory a little less, and Ks at the bottom of my debate arg hierarchy. I try to be tabula rasa so I will nevertheless do my best to intervene as little as possible, but I recommend the following notes as things to keep in mind when you debate in front of me!
Case debate: Smart (topical) approaches to rounds are always appreciated! Make your case clear and signpost properly or else you will lose me on the flow. Make your links strong and have well-developed impact stories, and make sure to collapse properly and weigh your arguments well. I like ads, disads, and counterplans, so feel free to run it all! I will vote for an abusive counterplan, but I will also vote on well-articulated CP theory (PICs bad, Delay bad).
Theory: I also enjoy theory and am def willing to vote on most theory shells. Make sure you’ve got your interps, standards, counter-interps, and counter-standards or it’s going to be a difficult time and I will be sad. If debaters don’t articulate a framework to evaluate the theory through, I will default to competing interpretations. To me, this is literally weighing the interp vs the counter-interp by using the standards and counter-standards as the uniqueness. I don’t like RVIs because I think theory is an important check so if you’re going for one, you should have a good reason.
Kritiques: I’m down for the K but it’s not my favorite thing to judge. I will definitely vote for them if you win the flow, but please make sure you make all components of it clear! If the argument isn’t made clear, I will be hesitant to vote on it. This is a particular problem with post-structuralist arguments that rely on a lot of lit that I most certainly have not read, so I can’t backfill anything for you and will avoid doing so no matter what you read. If your opponents are lost, chances are that I am as well. Make your links rock-solid and your alt solvency crystal-clear and that will be your route to the ballot.
K Affs: Most of the above applies here, but since I believe that debate has inherent value in at least discussing the topic in a substantial way so if you run one, please PLEASE contextualize it to the resolution and explain why you couldn’t defend a topical policy action. Framework-T is a great out for any negative strat against an aff-k.
Here are some other general thoughts I have on parli:
Conditionality: I believe that Condo is not a very good thing, and while I will not vote you down for being condo, I may be predisposed to lean towards a decent Condo Bad shell.
Speed: I can largely keep up, but don’t abuse your ability to spread! Make sure that the round is inclusive to everyone involved or debate is no fun. If you are incomprehensible, I will not hesitate to call “clear” or “slow” and I expect you to afford your opponents that same respect. If I miss something on the flow, it’s probably your fault.
Partner Communication: Since Parli is a team game, I expect communication to happen and I encourage it, as long as you are respectful while your opponents are speaking! I will also only flow what the current speaker says, so be aware of that when feeding arguments.
Speaker Points: I’m a point fairy! The top speaker will get 30, followed by 29.5, 29, 28.5. If I happen to give out something lower, I should have a justification and some constructive criticism on my ballot for you.
IVI's and RVI's: I have a high threshold for both IVI's and RVI's. If they are unresponded to, however, I will be forced to evaluate them.
P.S. I will be a very happy judge if you have clever taglines on your DA’s and AD’s :’)
Karen Moxon Paradigm
Sunil Naik Paradigm
KiYoung Nam Paradigm
Barbara Nash Paradigm
Virgil Nicula Paradigm
Alagu Palaniappan Paradigm
Sherry Park Paradigm
Sanjai Parthasarathi Paradigm
Svetlana Partsuf Paradigm
I'm a parent judge. I expect clear logical arguments presented in a precise, courteous manner. I do not appreciate the spreading, as it takes away from the actual debating. Be passionate in your presentation, but do not let your emotions substitute the arguments, evidence and logic. For the same reason, please, limit the case kritik. The tournament is a place to debate the resolution, not your personal views and affinities.
Sunada Parvathaneni Paradigm
Melissa Pham Paradigm
Jaidev Prabhu Paradigm
Revati Pradhan-Kasmalkar Paradigm
Rajesh Prasad Paradigm
Ram Rajamani Paradigm
Subha Ramachandran Paradigm
Jeff Ramdass Paradigm
tl;dr: Have fun, communicate clearly, use valid and relevant evidence effectively, and be respectful of yourselves, your opponents, and the community.
1. The rules of the debate as determined by the tournament and type of debate (PF, Parli, LD, Congress) are what I will use first to determine my ballot. If the debate is mutually agreed upon by the competitors to focus on a specific area or point/contention--either implicitly or explicitly--I will then focus on that to determine who wins my ballot.
2. A general note on evidence: It is up to you to convince me as a judge that your evidence is (1) valid and (2) relevant to the round. If you are on the negation and the evidence does not meet those criteria, I won't count it. If you are on the affirmation and the evidence is challenged, the negation will get my ballot fairly easily. If you are on the affirmation and the negation does not challenge the evidence (i.e., no clash), assume that you will get my ballot with low speaker points.
2A. I have my MA in Social Psychology and am currently pursuing a PhD in Social Psychology. My explicit biases for evidence are those that cover groups of people over any specific person. There is value in a case-study of a specific point, but I will way a case-study less than a study describing trends or relationships between constructs/concepts or people.
2B. Similarly, I will value plausible evidence more than implausible examples. It is your responsibility to convince me that your evidence is plausible.
2C. Sensationalist or inflammatory arguments or evidence that do not add to the overall logic or arguments of the round will be ignored completely (e.g., they won't make my flow sheet). It is your responsibility to ensure that your argument is either (a) not sensationalist, (b) not inflammatory or (c) relevant to the round.
3. PF and Parli: I am not judging a policy round. I value communication as much as the arguments used in the round, and I will rate speakers higher if they are better communicators than those who spread faster than what a normal person can hear. Assume that I am listening but that the caffeine has not yet kicked in from the judges' room.
4. LD: Values matter. I am a traditionalist when it comes to LD. If you lose the values debate, you will lose my ballot. If the core values are relatively equal, I will base my decision on the realism of the value criterion (i.e., a VC that is realistically possible will be preferred over one that is purely theoretical).
5. Congress: My main experience when competing is is in Student Congress. I am aware that Congress is both an art and a science. Assume that I am judging the round holistically and that (1) better speeches usually leads to better ranks, and (2) being more active in the session leads to better ranks.
6. Have fun. We all showed up because this is something that we enjoy. Treat others with the respect you hope to be treated with, and I will do my best to treat everyone with respect throughout the round.
Ramesh Rao Paradigm
I am an experienced lay judge, and have judged multiple tournaments. You can assume that I am fluent in English, and most likely will at least have some knowledge of the policy you will be debating. I look for cogent arguments presented in a logical manner. Recitation of statistics, if they help your argument, are good, but since I cannot verify them in real time, use them only if it strongly bolsters your case. As all judges do, I expect that you treat your opponents with respect. I have only a cursory knowledge of topicalities and kritiks, and ask that if you do use them, they be specific, relevant, and well flushed out. Please define terms such as interpretation and standards as you use them. I am okay with spreading as long as it does not detract from my ability to understand your argumentation, and if it does, I will tell you to be clearer.
William Rassieur Paradigm
Ryan Reid Parli Paradigm
* I did parli debate for 5 years in college and this is my 1st year out
* Be organized
* Don't say anything rude, racist, sexist, classist, or homophobic
* Speed theory is a thing for me ( this doesn't mean you have to go slow in front of me, go as fast as you want, but if they run speed theory respond to it as needed )
* This is your round/game so run whatever you want as fast as you want, while still being clear ( with some exceptions/caveats )
* I might make facial expressions, I might not, either way don't read too much into them except for the SUPER obvious non-verbal expressions.
* Don't lie/make things up
* All plan/counterplan texts should be read twice
* I will default to Net Bens/consequentialism unless otherwise specified
* Have actual impacts, don't say: Nuclear war bad, specify what that looks like through the lenses of TF, probability, and magnitude
* Be sure to tag where you're at etc...
* You can be Condo with Counterplans( or ALTs ), but know that I am more likely to favor being unconditional/non-dispositional
* All interps should be read twice
* I've been known to vote on RVIs ( If you don't know what it is don't worry about it )
* If you're advanced enough to run the K, do so in a clear/organized fashion
* I am VERY predisposed AGAINST Identity politics K's ( Queer, Anti-Blackness, Fem, some variations on performance ), this is not to say I will not vote on them, but that if they are run in front of me that you should do so VERY carefully and do not do so in a way that belittles/berates/traumatizes others, or ONLY leverages personal experience. This is not to potentially exclude individuality from the round but to prevent the militirzation of agency to the potential detriment/harm of others.
* Links should be contextualized, and not SUPER generic
* ROB and ALT text should be read twice
James Rogers Paradigm
TL;DR: flow judge, idgaf, don't shake hands
I like specific questions, but won't waste your time with specifics here. Hmu before round.
8 years competing: 3 lay HS parli, 5 NPDA/NPTE.
6 years coaching HS circuit parli, 2 years asst coaching NPDA, now head debate coach at Evergreen Valley.
Academically, I'm an Int'l Relations major with primary interests in Marxist political economy, energy policy, and security studies.
On speaking style:
Talk as fast as needed. "Slow" means slow down; "clear" means enunciate. It will be obvious if idk where you are on the flow.
Spreading then ceding time, ad hom attacks, and unnecessary aggression = I nuke your speaks.
If you exclude others, they can argue that you should lose for it.
I reserve the right to drop you if you're an asshole.
On general argumentation:
I assume death is bad, but idk.
The aff should probably be topical.
Analyzed evidence > evidence > reasoning > claims. Unanswered claims flow through; yes, I accept shadow extensions -- fight me.
Most impact calculus is probability, timeframe, and magnitude. Know which works best for your case.
Any theory works if you back up your interp.
I find most theory debates to be tiresome, but will not intervene on that basis.
I default to reasonability.
Any K is fine as long as the alt outweighs the perm. (Impact turns are cool too)
I <3 cap bad; I <3 nuking speaks if you're just pandering.
For carded debate:
Slow and emphasize the author, date, and tag; Without clear tagging, later speeches are hell.
I only call for cards if the other team says you're lying/powertagging.
my email is email@example.com
Isaac Ruiz Paradigm
The merit of your arguments is the foremost deciding factor for me. The debater(s) who has the strongest arguments should win. As a personal preference, I like well structured debates. If I can easily flow what you're saying and where you're refuting your opponent, it makes it much easier for me to make a fair decision without interjecting into your round.
Try not to be mean. There is really no reason to be rude or condescending; these are strategies of aggression that are usually employed by debaters who lack more refined skills of actual argumentation. You should address me, the judge, not each other. You can communicate with your teammate, but it should not be excessive or distracting... and I will only flow what actually comes out of the speaker's mouth. I recommend that you stand when you speak and employ good public speaking traits: articulation, limit non-verbal distractions, fluid delivery with few verbal fillers, eye contact, expressiveness, etc.
I am willing to listen to anything you'd like to discuss. However, it is your responsibility to explain clearly why I should prefer your argument to another. Only run topicalities if you feel it absolutely necessary. Your responsibility as a debater is to explain exactly what the violation is and how it impacts the round or to explain clearly why the violation did not occur or how it is irrelevant to the round. Also, remember to respond to all arguments presented; an argument not responded to is an argument conceded. If your opponent says "the sun is blue" and you don't respond to it, then, well, I guess the sun is blue.
I rarely vote on Ks, so I would mostly recommend simply not running them, but if you are fully confident you can convince me that it is more important than the resolution, then go for it.
I feel speed is also weak strategy as it promotes quantity over quality of arguments. I'd rather hear fewer, more developed arguments than a long list used as a time suck... which sucks. If I'm having a hard time keep up with your spreading, it can negatively hurt your argument. Use of jargon is fine, as long as you are using it correctly and linking it specifically into the debate. Don't use jargon for jargon sake; integrate it into the specific debate.
If you have other questions, feel free to ask me!
Scu 5 SCU 5 Paradigm
Scu1 SCU1 Paradigm
Scu2 SCU2 Paradigm
Scu3 SCU3 Paradigm
Scu4 SCU4 Paradigm
Scu9 SCU9 Paradigm
Chandra Sekhar Paradigm
Rajesh Shah Paradigm
Rupesh Shah Paradigm
Rajesh Shah Paradigm
Carl Shan Paradigm
I competed in LD, Parli and Pofo in high school from 2006 - 2010. I was fairly fast as an LD and Pofo debater and can listen to spreads. I won the UC Berkeley tournament in Pofo in 2010.
I don't enjoy arguments like e.g., topicality, K's or the like but am willing to vote on them.
I prefer debaters to be respectful and will dock speaker points for rudeness.
I will generally disclose at the end of rounds and try to offer thorough feedback.
Meenakshi Sharma Paradigm
Venkatraya Shenoy Paradigm
Clarice Simmons Paradigm
Manveer Singh Paradigm
Sharad Singhai Paradigm
Weihua Song Paradigm
Sakshi Soti Paradigm
3 years of debate experience. No spreading. Tabula Rasa.
Lakshmi Sriram Paradigm
Srinivasan Subbaraman Paradigm
Subhashini Subramanian Paradigm
Jiming Sun Paradigm
Sara Suresh Paradigm
Laxmi Suvarna Paradigm
I judge Parliamentary debates. Even though I am not very experienced, my criteria to judge is based on how well the debaters bring their points on to the table. Either it could be Aff or Neg, I prefer to have the teams present some strong analysis. Please be clear and confident on your supporting evidence. Having an organized presentation will be an addition.
Good Luck and Happy Debating!
Neelesh Thakur Paradigm
Ashwath Thirumalai Paradigm
Scott Thurm Paradigm
Praveen Tomar Paradigm
Colina Tong Paradigm
Haviette Too Paradigm
Helen Towers Paradigm
Judge Tunnell Paradigm
Sreedhar Vaidyanathan Paradigm
Kristen Vehling Paradigm
Sam Vesurai Paradigm
Manish Vichare Paradigm
Thraneedharan Vilwanathan Paradigm
Rajul Vora Paradigm
Anthony Waitz Paradigm
- Speak loudly and clearly. Avoid spreading.
- A few strong points are better than many weak ones.
- Logical arguments are better than bickering about technicalities.
- Finally and most importantly, don't forget to speak loudly and clearly.
Koshi Wang Paradigm
Michael Wang Paradigm
David Warne Paradigm
Tracy Weatherby Paradigm
Richard Weeks Paradigm
Dan Weiner Paradigm
Nandi Weser Paradigm
Janine Widman Paradigm
I am a coach of the Davis High School Debate team. I took on the position without experience but have gained quite a bit by following my team around and judging everything from local, to private school, to state and national tournaments. I have judged LD and Policy on the national level as a result of their tenacity. I am thankful for these experiences and have really enjoyed judging and learning as I go. I now teach the speech and debate class at the school.
I can give you generally how I vote and what I am looking for.
Speed: Go any speed you want but make sure you are clear. Make sure you road-map and signpost very clearly. Although I can follow the spread just fine, I want your points to be clear and I want to be able to understand what you are saying. slow down when you tag and cite if it is a new source.
Evaluation: I will judge based mainly on the flow. I want to see organization of your arguments and clear clash. I will base my decision on flow, but also good solid adherence to your argument and value criterion. Set up a strong framework. This will be the ultimate basis of the case and the flow will prove whether your framework is solid
Theory: I am familiar with theory and philosophical debates and have judged quite of few of these. Just make sure you support it and don't have it be just fluff to distract from the debate. I will definitely entertain the idea of a good K if you really explain it and handle the cross x of that idea.
Lastly, I like good decorum. I like you to treat your opponents with respect and keep the debate about the issues so no ad hominem. Win on good debate skills and not bullying.
Martin Wilson Paradigm
Please avoid spreading and use a clear, well-articulated case or plan to structure your ideas.
Most importantly, please focus on providing me with a grounded, well-rounded proposal that drives home the impacts of the plan and effectively answers the "Feasibility" question. By Feasibility, I mean the following:
-What kind of buy-in from stakeholders would you need to implement this plan? How would you get it?
-How would the plan be funded, by whom, and what is the expected return on investment?
-What kind of legal/compliance issues would you need to address and how?
-Break down your impact calculus: Scope, time-frame, and magnitude.
Ultimately, I want you to tell me why an agency, organization, and/or company would want to take on on this project/plan.
If you use any racial slurs, endorsements of the Holocaust or genocide, etc.; I will vote you down without question, even if the other team starts to argue against themselves.
Barry Wong Paradigm
Jean Wong Paradigm
Ju Yang Paradigm
I am a parent judge for JV Parliamentary Debate. I know most of the basics of debate and I don't like spreading or kritiks. I encourage good speaking, but mainly focus on content. Clash of arguments are very important to me in debates, so I will judge based on the arguments. Speak clearly and make yourself understandable. Enjoy and have fun!