Background & Experience: 

4 years of hs parli (circuit and lay, 2x toc champ), some HS policy (circuit), some college NPDA 

General Philosophy:

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.  

Spreading:

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. 

Kritiks:

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. 

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES: 

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. 

Theory:

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. 

Presentation: 

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. 

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.

I am a parent judge with no debating experience. I have had 4 years of judging experience, but generally do not vote on any theory arguments. If you are running topicality or any other debate technicality, please explain it clearly and explain its impacts on the round. I can handle mild speed, but please do not spread. I will take notes, but please explain the flow, especially while trying to drop opponents arguments. I normally vote heavily on impacts so be sure to clearly link all of your arguments to the weighing mechanism. Please be respectful to your opponents throughout the round.

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 :)

PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND PLEASE

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 condensed 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.

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.

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.

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. 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 offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

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'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. 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. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - 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.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine 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. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

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. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. 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, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. 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 except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). 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 alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time 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 an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. 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, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, 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. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

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. 

Firoz Gill

Background:
4 years of high school parli, 1 year of NPDA parli

Default paradigm:
- I am a flow judge.
- I default to comparative worlds and net benefits.

Flowing:
- 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.

Presentation:
- 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.

Argumentation preferences:
- 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).

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! 

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.

I am a parent judge with some past experience of judging debate and speech, but I still consider myself as a lay judge. I generally decide debates on the following criteria:

Understanding of the resolution;

Reliability of the sources used;

Relevance of examples to the argument;

Logic of argument based on the facts/sources;

Overall organization of presentation/speech skill;

You don't need to ask me to vote for you; I will make the call based on what you have presented to me.

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.

Parent Judge. No speed or Ks. I appreciate a clear round with plausible impacts. 

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.

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!

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!

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 -

normal speed

logical and coherent

specific and persuasive

clear and straight'orward

Roadmapping and signposting at the beginning and during each speech are very much appreciated.

I am a parent judge with some experience judging parlimentary debates in the last five of years. Starting with a road map is helpful for me to follow your round. I value clarify over speed. I appreciate strong reasoning and data/facts-supported analysis to make it clear for me to decide who wins the round. It is also important for me to see you are respectful to your opponents.

1. The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, and long COVID destroys lives. I will be wearing a mask, and I beg you to do the same if you are in a room where I am judging—both to protect all of us from the continuing pandemic, and because I am particularly at risk due to my own health conditions. I will try to have high-quality masks available to share; if you don't have a mask, I will assume that you were unable to access one, and will not ask further questions beyond a quick request. However, I will have trouble believing critical debate arguments that come from people who are not masked, because it seems to represent a lack of interest in pursuing true community care and justice. I don't know how that fits into a meaningful line-by-line evaluation, but I know that I will be unable to stop myself from being distracted from the round. If that causes issues for you, of course, don't pref me highly!
2. You should be aware that I am still recovering from a series of concussions that mean my ability to follow rapid arguments may be limited. I will tell you if I need you to slow or speak more clearly. Fine with all types of argumentation still, it's just a speed issue. That means I may also need extra time moving between arguments/papers.
3. For a dictionary of terms used in my paradigm (or otherwise common in parli), click here. I recently edited this paradigm to better reflect my current thoughts on debate (mainly the essay on pedagogy, but some other minor alterations throughout), so you may want to look through if you haven't in a while.
4. Take care, all. Tough times.

TL;DR: Call the Point of Order, use weighing and framing throughout, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I won't shake your hands, but sending you lots of good luck and vibes for good rounds through the ether!

Background and Trivia

I did high school parli, then NPDA, APDA, BP, and NFA-LD in college; I've coached parli at Mountain View-Los Altos since 2016. My opinions on debate have perhaps been most shaped by partners—James Gooler-Rogers, Steven Herman, various Stanford folks—as well as my former students and/or fellow coaches at MVLA—particularly William Zeng, Shirley Cheng, Riley Shahar, Alden O'Rafferty, and Luke DiMartino. More recent people who *may* evaluate similarly to me include Henry Shi, Keira Chatwin, Rhea Jain,Renée Diop, and Maya Yung.

I've squirreled (was the 1 of a 2-1 decision) twice—once was in 2016 with two parent judges who either voted on style or didn't explain their decisions (it's been a while! I can't quite remember); the other was at NorCal Champs 2021, I believe because I tend to be fairly strict about granting credence to claims only if they are sufficiently warranted logically, and my brightline for evaluation differed from the brightlines of the other judges for determining that. There was one more time at a recent tournament, but I have forgotten it, sorry!

Most Important

• An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication; 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 claim 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 ~7 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.

• In other words—If there is no justification for a claim, the claim does not exist, or at best is downgraded to barely there. I think the most clear distinction between my way of evaluating arguments/avoiding intervention and some other judges' style of doing so is that I default to assuming nothing is true, and require justification to believe anything, whereas some judges default to assuming that every claim is true unless it is disproven.

• Debate should be respectful, educational, and kind. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that. Be good to each other.

• Fine with kritiks, theory, and any counterplans, and fine to arguments against them as well. I don't think arguments automatically must be prioritized over other arguments (via layers), i.e. you need to explain and warrant why theory should be evaluated prior to a kritik for it to do so. If I have to make these decisions myself, in the absence of arguments, you may not like what I come up with! Generally, I think that I probably have to understand something like an epistemological claim (pre-fiat arguments) before I can evaluate a policy debate, but that might not always be the case depending on specific arguments made in round.

• I don't care if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should be evaluated before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget/don't know the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".

• Speaking during your partner's speech is fine, so long as the current speaker repeats anything said—I will only flow the current speaker. If you frequently interrupt your partner without being asked (puppeting), I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding.

• Content warnings are good (link).

• Call the Point of Order.

Pedagogy, or, why are we here? (UPDATED: 3/20/2024)

Debate can be a game, and a fun one at that, but it is not just a game to me—debate is a locus of interrogation, and a place where dominant ideologies can be held up and challenged. At its best, debate is a place where we can learn to speak, advocate, and grow as critical thinkers, participants in political processes, or members of movements organizing towards justice. Some debaters become policymakers, but every debater becomes a member of a society full of structural violence with the capacity to contribute to, or work against, the structures that enable harm.

With that in mind, a few notes (or, sorry, an essay) to consider the pedagogical nature of this space. Within the round, I will not tolerate —phobias, —isms, or misgendering/deadnaming in any debate space that I am a part of. If these things happen, I will dramatically reduce your speaks, and we will talk about it after round, or I will reach out to a coach. I will never vote on arguments that are implicitly harmful (e.g. eugenicist, racist, transphobic) and there is no amount of warranting that can convince me to do so. I am aware that some judges on this circuit intervene against technical arguments like criticism (kritiks) or theory because they believe that technical teams exclude non-technical teams from competition. I believe that technical arguments are a form of inclusion that allow people who have historically been marginalized in debate settings and beyond to engage in rounds in ways that non-technical debate prevents. This means that while I am happy to hear a "lay" round of policy discussion or a values- or principles-based debate, I will always deeply value technical debate education and critical arguments.

However, I know that technical debate can be intimidating: one of the only remaining videos of my debating is NPDI finals, 2014 (ten years ago, can you believe it?)—in which I argued shakily against a kritik at the fastest speed I could and almost fainted after. I learned what kritiks were just two days before that round. For the rest of my high school debate career, I learned about kritiks to beat them, because technical arguments intimidated me. Then, I went to a community college to compete in NPDA, and learned that kritiks are not something to be feared, but just another argument to engage with—one which can provide us with even greater education about the world that we live in and the ways that it harms people, than repeating the same tired arguments about minor reforms that can attempt to solve some minute portion of structural problems.

As someone who works in policy now, I think that the skills we learn from policy rounds are invaluable, but flawed. Uniqueness-link-impact structures are the way that policy analysis works in real life, too, as they correlate to harms, solvency, and implications. Analysis more common in APDA and BP, like incentives or actor analysis, is also pedagogically useful for policy. However, these structures are outdated: working in policy now, I know that one of the most important things we can learn to do is incorporate analysis of racial and other forms of equity into every step of our policy analysis, because the absence of this affirmative effort results in the same inequity and injustice that is embedded in every stage of our political and social systems.

I do not care if that analysis takes the form of structured criticism (kritik), framing arguments, or more unstructured principled argumentation, but I hope that anyone who happens to read this considers ways to incorporate analysis of racial, class, gender, ability, and other inequities into their rounds.

Finally—as a coach who views this activity as a pedagogical one, the most important thing to me is that debaters enter rounds willing to engage with arguments, and exit them having learned something about another perspective on an issue. I am still here to judge and coach, after all these years, because I enjoy being a part of the process of helping people learn how to effectively use their voices in meaningful ways by understanding what is persuasive and what is not.

So, please—be open-minded. If you fear kritiks because they confuse you, let that turn you to curiosity instead of hate. Recognize that kritiks are often a tool by which those of us who are marginalized by this community can, for a few moments, reclaim space, find belonging, and learn about ourselves and others. Ask yourself deeply why it is that you are unwilling to question the structures that govern debate and the world. Do you benefit from them? Do we all? Can't we all learn to think about them too?

Simultaneously, debate's educational value relies on inclusivity—if you run kritiks alongside theory and tricks at top speed on teams that are not comfortable with these things, what are you running the kritik for? How is that an effective form of education? Why do that, when you could simply run a kritik at an understandable speed? In other words—if you read kritiks exclusively to win, and intend to do so by confusing your opponents, I will be a very sad judge at the end of the round (and sad judges are more likely to see more paths to voting against you, of course).

As a whole, then, I am a strange hybrid product of my peculiar debate education. 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 blipped/unsupported claims, use theory arguments when needed to check abuse, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without the structure of traditional criticism.

Case

• Rebuttals should primarily consist of weighing between arguments. This does not mean methodically evaluating each argument through probability, timeframe, AND magnitude, but telling a comprehensive story as to how your arguments win the round.

• Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run cases when they don't apply.

• (UPDATED 11/4/21) I tend to be cautious about the probability of scenarios. This means that I prefer to not intervene or insert my own assumptions about how your link chains connect—if they are not clear, or if they do not connect clearly, I may end up disregarding your arguments. I tend to have a higher threshold on this than most judges on this circuit, courtesy of my APDA/BP roots, so please do not leave gaps!

• Default weighing is silly on principle: I'm not likely to vote for a high-magnitude scenario that has zero chance of happening unless you have specific framing arguments on why I should do so, but if you make the arguments, I'll vote on them. Risk calculus is probability x magnitude mediated by timeframe, so just do good analysis.

• Presumption flows the direction of least change. This means that I presume neg if there is no CP, and aff if there is. I am certainly open to arguments about how presumption should go — it's your round — but I will only presume if I really, truly have to (and if the presumption claims are actually warranted). 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.

• Fine with perms that add new things (intrinsic) or remove parts of your case (severance) if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.

• I love deep case debates. In NPDA I enjoyed reading single position cases, whether a kritik read alone or a disadvantage or advantage. These debates are some of the most educational, and will often result in high speaks. I am also a bif fan of critical framing on ads/disads.

• Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.

Theory (UPDATED 11/4/21)

• I default to competing interpretations—In theory rounds, I prefer to evaluate the argument by determining which side has the best interpretation of what debate should be, based on the offense and defense within the standards debate.

• I am open to the argument that I should be reasonable instead, but I believe that reasonability requires a clear brightline (e.g. must win every standard); otherwise, I will interpret reasonability to mean "what Sierra thinks is reasonable" and intervene wholeheartedly.

• I view we meets as something like terminal defense against an interpretation—I think that if I am evaluating based on proven abuse, and the interpretation is met by the opposing team, there is no harm done/no fairness and education lost and thus theory goes away. However, if I am evaluating based on potential abuse, I think that the we meet might not matter? (As you can see, I'm currently conflicted on how to evaluate this—if you want to make arguments that even if the interp is met theory is still a question of which team has the better interpretation for debate as a whole (e.g. based solely on potential abuse), I'm open to that too!

• Weighing and internal link analysis are the most important part of theory debates—I do not want to intervene to decide which standards I believe are more important than which counterstandards, etc. Please don't make me!

• Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased—and well-adapted to the round at hand. In other words, as someone who wrote a university thesis on literary analysis, interp flaws are a big deal to me.

• 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. Being able to throw out an entire case and figure out a new strategy in the 1NC? Brilliant. High speaks.

• (UPDATED 5/6/22) Frivolous theory is technically fine, because it's your round, but I won't be thrilled, you know? It gets boring. However—I am very open to theory arguments based on pointing out flaws in a plan text. Plan flaws, like interp flaws, are a big deal to me.

• The trend of constant uplayering seems tedious to me. I would much rather watch a standards debate between two interesting interpretations than a more meta shell without engagement. Your round, but just saying.

Kritiks + Tech

General:

• Kritiks are great when well-run. To keep them that way, please run arguments you personally understand or are seriously trying to understand, rather than shells that you borrowed frantically from elder teammates because you saw your judge is down for them.

• Originality: I most highly value/will give the highest speaks for original criticism—in other words, kritiks that combine theories in a reasonable way or produce new types of knowledge, particularly in ways that are not often represented in parli.

• Rejecting the res (UPDATED 10/9/2021): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the argument is these days. Generally safer to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright, unless the resolution itself is flawed, or you have solid indicts of framework prepared. However, if you're ready for it, go for it. Good K vs K debates are my favorite type of debate entirely.

• Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.

• On identity (UPDATED 10/15/2020): All criticism is tied in some way to identity, whether because we make arguments based on the understanding of the world that our subject position allows us, or because our arguments explicitly reference our experiences. I used to ask debaters to not make arguments based on their identities: this is a position that I now believe is impossible. What we should not do, though, is make assumptions about other people's identities—do not assume that someone responding to a K does not have their own ties to that criticism, and do not assume that someone running a K roots it, nor does not root it, in their identity. We are each of us the product of both visible and invisible experiences—please don't impose your assumptions on others. I will not police your choices; just be mindful of the fraught nature of the debate space.

Literature familiarity: In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me:

• Relatively high familiarity (have studied relatively intensively; familiar with a range of authors, articles, and books): queer theory, disability theory, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives, critical legal theory (e.g. "human rights"), decolonization and "post" colonial studies

• Medium familiarity (have read at least a few foundational books/articles): Afrofuturism, securitization, settler-colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, biopower, security, anti-neoliberalism, transfeminism, basics of psychoanalysis from Freud

• I will be sad and/or disappointed if you read this: most postmodern things that are hard to understand, Lacan, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, any theory rooted in racism, anything that is trans exclusionary.

• I'm still not sure what I think of including a list of authors I'm familiar with, but I think on balance that it is preferable to make this explicit rather than having it in my head and having some teams on the circuit be aware of my interests when other teams are unaware. Don't ever assume someone knows your specific theory or author. Familiarity does not mean I'll vote for it.

Tricksy things

• Conditionality: debates that have collapsed out of arguments you aren't going to win are good debates. 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've actually found I have difficulty following fast rounds online; I think I'm reasonably comfortable at top high school speeds but maybe not top college speeds. Often the problem is coherency/clarity and people not slowing between arguments—if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.

• On philosophical tricks: I'll be honest: I don't understand many of the philosophical arguments/tricks that are likely to be at this tournament (dammit Jim, I was an English major not a philosophy major!) I will reiterate with this in mind, then, that I will not vote for your blips without warrants, and will not vote for arguments I don't understand. Convince me at the level of your novices.

Points of Order

• I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the Point of Order if it's on the edge. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the Point of Order to avoid intervening. After ~2 POOs, I'll just be extremely cautious for the rest of the speech.

Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)

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.
29.5-29.8: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
29.9-30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, top speaker, TOC, etc (have never given; have known every TOC top speaker for years; can't think of a round where I would ever give this to any of them)

I don't care if you talk pretty, stutter, or have long terrified pauses in your speech: I vote on the arguments.

This paradigm is long. I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge, or a given format. I encourage other judges, NPDA and APDA and BP alike, to do the same.

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.

Summary

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.

My Experience

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.

Judging Philosophy

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. No blippy, jargony taglines where you expect me to fill in what it means. 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 and importance. I am perfectly fine (in fact I encourage) you to dismiss baseless assertions as just that and not spend too much time on them.

Parli-specific Preferences

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.

Partner Assist

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.

Counterplans/Perms

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.

Decorum

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.

Kritiks

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.

Theory

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.

Overused Words

I'm not sure I know what "dehumanization" or "educationality" really mean anymore. You had better explain it to me.

Parent judge.

Lay judge, slow on speaking, discouraging tech debate. Be confident in your speaking and be nice to your opponents. Make sure to impact out your points and relate back to the standard of the debate.

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 :’)

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.

I am a former debate coach and debate tab staffer at many regional and circuit-level tournaments in California. I competed in student congress and have actively coached congress, speech (e.g., oratory or platform events), LD, and public forum debate. I competed from 2006 to 2008, coached from 2008 to 2013, and tabbed from 2011 to 2022. My specialty is in tabbing and evaluating TOC-level congressional debate rounds.

Outside of speech and debate, I have my PhD in Social Psychology. I focus on group identities and how it affects our thoughts and behaviors. Between that and my other professional experiences, my view of speech and debate has now become focused on the communication of information and logical arguments for an audience.

Here is how this has affected my perspectives of debate rounds:

1. Do not actively harm anyone else in the debate round. Personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or similar actions detract from the speech and debate experience. If you engage in any behavior that actively harms yourself or a competitor, I will give the win to your opponent and immediately let tab staff know of your behavior.
   
   Think about what you plan to say or do before you say and do it. This can often lead to a better round and less potential for unintentional outcomes from a round. This can also help identify biases within ourselves and each other that affect what we do and do not perceive or how our words and actions can affect others. I am trying to learn how my biases influence how I see the world, and I hope you take time to do so as well.
2. Any argument that you want to run that does not actively harm yourself or your opponent works for me. This includes traditional and progressive arguments. Importantly, any argument that you want to run is fine with me if you can explain the argument in simple English. Tell me why your argument is relevant and matters in the round, and I will evaluate it. Arguments filled with excessive jargon without an attempt to explain it in simple English will likely be ignored.
3. Debate is inherently an activity based on value judgements. Arguments that focus on an empiric as the take-home point (e.g., we save x more lives than our opponents or save x more money than our opponents) do not inherently have value by itself. You need to tell me why your evidence and analysis matters (e.g., overall, our side allows us to achieve something we value or avoid something that we do not value). Tell me what matters, and tell me why I should weigh it above your opponents' case. On average, I will value plausible evidence more than implausible examples. As an aside, extinction arguments will usually be ignored and excluded from my flow if it is irrelevant to the topic.
4. It is up to you to convince me as a judge that your evidence is (1) valid and (2) relevant to the round. 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 will not make my flow sheet). It is your responsibility to ensure that your argument is (a) not sensationalist, (b) not inflammatory, and (c) relevant to the round
5. I do not support the game theory of spreading. Communication matters. Information processing speed in working memory capacity matters. Short-term memory matters. Physical or mental obstacles to hearing or encoding information matters.
   
   I will defer to Cowan's (2001) analysis of short-term memory, which states that a person can remember about 4 chunks of information in short-term memory. In practice, this means that I--as well as every other judge you encounter--will remember somewhere around 4 chunks of information within each speech. You are better off developing four well-developed chunks than spreading across multiple points in a constructive speech and then collapsing from many arguments into few arguments.
   
   What this means in practice is this: If you propose three to four general advantages/disadvantages, contentions, or reasons why I should support your side and realize that two of those points should be promoted by you and your team, then collapsing to those two chunks makes sense and is a good strategy to do. If you propose more than one chunk per minute (or more) so that there is no way for your opponent to respond, and then collapse after your opponent had a chance to address your case overall? That is not equitable and I will likely call out that strategy.
   
   Do not spread. Speed is okay, but spreading will receive low speaker points. Furthermore, I will be very open to hearing and voting for a critique that says the opponent is spreading too fast, which inherently makes the activity more exclusionary and harmful to competitors and observers within speech and debate.
6. Most debates focus on a specific topic or point. Although it is a tactic to focus on a specific aspect of the debate, concede that point after much of the round has passed, and then state “I concede the point that we spent much of the round that we discussed while still winning on the rest of my case that my opponent has overlooked,” I find that to be a very cheap debate tactic that does not have much real world applicability. If you and your opponent explicitly or implicitly focus on a specific point or area of contention within a round, I will decide my ballot based on that point or contention.
7. Specific to LD: I need a value. Morality is not a value, as groups define what it means to be moral (Ellemers et al., 2013). I need to know a specific value that you think I should promote or prefer in the round.
   
   Utilitarianism is a value, but you need to tell me why this value should be preferred over other values in the round. Stating that your value is utilitarianism and that your value criterion/plan/whatever is a cost-benefit analysis may or may not win you the round, but I will likely not give more than 27 speaker points in the round to a competitor who proposes this CV/VC or defaults to this CV/VC.
8. Specific to Congressional Debate: You may have noticed that I said I competed in student congress but evaluate congressional debate rounds in my introduction. That is intentional. Congressional debate has grown into a multifaceted event with nuanced arguments regarding policy and societal proposals and implications. Assume that my rankings is based on diversity of skills (e.g., can you give multiple types of speeches), essentialism within the round (e.g., what was your holistic effect within the round, or how would the round be different if you were not in the round), and quality of novel arguments and argument advancement during debate on a topic.
   
   I rank presiding officers and know how to evaluate them based on 2 years of being a presiding officer and 14 years of evaluating student congress and congressional debate rounds.
   
   All things being equal, I rank students lowly who only give crystallization speeches within the round. The goal of congressional debate is to advance discussion on a topic. There are many ways to do so (e.g., sponsorship, early-cycle extension speeches, summary and late-cycle extension speeches, and crystallization speeches). All speeches have value, but I prefer students who show diversity in their speech types when possible. When diversity is not possible, I need to know how your speech extends an argument above and beyond summarizing what was previously discussed. Often, crystallization speeches summarize events without extending discussions. In rounds where it is possible for all speakers to give two speeches, I rate students who choose to only give crystallization speeches lower.

Overall, I hope you have fun, communicate clearly, use valid and relevant evidence effectively, and be respectful of yourselves, your opponents, and the community. 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.

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.

Judging Philosophy

  General Notes  

* 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

  Traditional Debate  

* 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

  Theory Debate  

* 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 )

  Kritik Debate  

* 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

He/him/his

My email is jrogers31395@gmail.com if you have questions, or if I'm judging Policy/LD/PF

On general argumentation:

I have a fairly nihilistic approach to impact calculus, but assume that death is bad.

Analyzed evidence > evidence > reasoning > claims.

On delivery:

Talk as fast as needed. "Slow" means slow down; "clear" means enunciate more.

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 Theory:

I default to reasonability, and would much rather judge either substantive policy or critical debate -- don't choose not to run theory if you actually feel like the other team is being abusive. I understand the strategic utility/necessity of theory, and have run/voted for a few garbagey theory shells before.

The aff should probably be topical, but if you don't want to be, just justify why that should be allowed.

On Kritiks:

I enjoy good Kritik vs policy or K vs K debate -- I personally have the greatest degree of familiarity with Marxist anti-capitalist stuff, and I've got a decent working knowledge of most of the popular kritikal lit bases I've seen recently.

If you can't clearly connect the theory/structure you critique to material harm and present an alternative that can solve it, I don't know why I should vote for you.

For carded debate:

Please slow and emphasize the author, date, and tag - it makes extensions much cleaner if I actually know what cards you're talking about

I only call for cards if the other team says you're lying/powertagging, or if one card becomes the fulcrum for most/all terminal offense in the round.

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! 

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.

3 years of debate experience. No spreading. Tabula Rasa. 

Hello,

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!

A parent judge with a few years of experience judging various tournaments and events. I care about presentation and the real-world impacts of your arguments.

• Speak loudly and clearly. Avoid spreading.
• A few strong points are better than many weak ones.
• Logical arguments are better than bickering about technicalities.

Background:

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.  

Have fun 

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.

I am a parent judge for Lincoln Douglas, and I used to judge 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. Make sure to have links and terminalize your impacts! Enjoy and have fun!