My Background:

I have experience judging varsity Parliamentary Debates in the past.

My Judging Preferences:

I like to judge on content, delivery and resolution. Delivery should be slow and clear, also I am not familiar with debate theory so prefer to keep things simple.

I am a judge who does not do well with fast speaking. I like it if points are explained very thoroughly and logically. I do not have much experience in debating, so debate terminology may need to also be explained. I do not like it if points are backed up by false facts or no facts, so make sure to have evidence!

 

Additionally, I do not understand theory or Ks very well and would prefer on-case, traditional debates.

I competed in policy debate in high school, and am now a debate parent.  I've been away from debate for a couple of decades, so please avoid speed and jargon, and any theory will have to be explained simply and clearly.

I'll vote on anything that is explained clearly, and provides a clear weighing mechanism to make it easier to vote.

If I did not catch something on my flow I am definetly not voting for it, so make taglines clear and do not go too fast.

I have a high threshold when it comes to understading Ks.

Clear Voters, do not leave the work up to me.

I default competing interps in regards to theory. I'll buy other arguments if they are explained well.

Good speaks: Effective strategy, polite, and working well with your partner.

Bad speaks: Opposite of above.

 

 

 

Experience: High School Policy Debate and Foreign Extemp, currently Parli Debate at Stanford University

I just moved from the Kansas City, Missouri area, which is a relatively "lay" Policy circuit. As a result, I will prefer more topic and policy-focused debate compared to theory-heavy debates. It's fine if you run theory, especially if it's obvious, just make sure that you're explaining it very clearly, or else I actually will not understand what you are talking about. If you make high-impact/low-probability arguments, you need to convince me with good links. Make sure you frame the debate well, focusing on weighing all your arguments (esp in rebuttals), and take POIs (clash keeps the debate interesting). 

 

I am parent judge and starting judging from Fall '16. 

Please do not speak at a fast speed to make all your points in the alloted short time.

I will judge based on the arguments and the burden of proof. I will do my best to ensure that best argument wins - which shows good evidence, persuasiveness and justification.  

 

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 highly value clarity in speech. I don't do well with speed so no spreading...I will vote you down if I cannot understand your arguments because of speed. Evidence should have credible sources and be relevant. Impact is key... tell me why this matters in the real world and why I should care. I will not vote on T's and K's. On case is key

 

I like straightforward, resolutional debate, presented at an ordinary rate of speed, and without jargon.

 

 I debated at Santa Fe High School in 1967.   I also attended SIU Carbondale for one year, 1971, where I debated on the varsity team for that year.  No parli back then, just policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philosophy of Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parli specifics:

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

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

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

Public Forum specifics:

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

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

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

 I'm a parent judge with no experience debating myself. Clarity is important - don't go too fast, or I will vote you down. I look for developed arguments and credible sources. A quick off-time road map would also be helpful.

This is my second year judging in parliamentary debate. Please make sure your arguments and your structure are clear and easy to understand. No kritiks or complicated theory and be respectful to your opponents. 

I'm a Sociology major at UC Berkeley in my third year of study and I go by they/them pronouns

This is my first year judging and I'm pretty flexible with all arguments.

I prefer well explained and well warranted arguments. If I can't follow the logic of your argument or don't understand because I don't think it was thoroughly explained enough, then I am not going to count it. Make the debate as easy for me to vote as possible - explain impacts properly and explain how arguments interact with each other and why they matter in the larger scope of the debate. Don't assume that you can handwave your way through your arguments by being blippy or without providing warrants. 

I will vote down teams who say racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, anti-LGBTQ+, ableist or otherwise problematic things. I think that an educational activity should be accessible to everyone and if your language makes me or other people uncomfortable, that's not okay. Be as courteous and respectful to your opponents as possible, don't talk over anyone else or each other. Have a good time overall. 

I prefer topical debates about the resolution provided. I prefer speakers to speak at a conversational level of speed in their speeches. I have a very high threshold for theory and kritiks.

I am looking for topical phil or policy on policy debate, so I won't be voting on a Kritik or any high theory argument and expect to listen to moderately paced speeches. However, I have experience judging varsity and junior varsity policy debate having judged for multiple league tournaments.

With that being said, please make your debates about the resolution. That means I will buy topicality arguments on the negative side as long as the interpretations and standards are fleshed out. I will also consider theory arguments such as prep skew if they are within reason. All in all, I will try not to bring any bias into the round, value tech over truth, and would like to judge rounds with clash.

Evergreen Valley '16

Berkeley '20

NPDI/TOC Update: I wrote this paradigm for circuit LD, but the general concept stands. In high school, I competed in parli sporadically, and qualified to TOC. In college, I competed & coached in several different formats, including APDA, BP, and Worlds Schools.

General

I will vote for whatever you present a compelling argument for. I default to an offense/defense paradigm, and ethical confidence on the framework level. I presume that all levels of the debate, e.g. theory, kritiks, contentions, etc. are equally important unless you argue otherwise. I flow cross-ex answers. To quote Christian Tarsney, my favorite debates are (1) philosophical debates focused on normative framework, (2) empirical debates with lots of weighing and evidence comparison, (3) just plain stock debates, (4) "critical" debates revolving around incoherent non-arguments from obscurantist pseudo-philosophers, and (5) theory debates, in that order.

Contentions

Weigh everything. I have a high threshold for extensions (i.e. you must re-explain the claim, impact, and warrant). You must explain why you win an argument and why it's a voting issue even if your opponent drops it.

Theory

Theory must include all the elements of a structured shell. You don't have to say "A is the..., B is the..." but you must mention an interpretation, violation, standard, and voter sometime in order for me to vote on the argument. I default to dropping the argument and competing interpretations on the theory debate.

Kritiks

Be creative! I will act as if I have no knowledge of the authors or literature you reference outside of what you have told me.

Other

I enjoy technical debate, I also understand that not everyone does. If your opponents are in the latter category, please don't use speed, jargon, or obscurity to try to get an advantage.

Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. You can contact me at v.a.sinnarkar@berkeley.edu.

I don't have that much experience judge for debate, but I would like for all the speakers to talk slowly and clearly. Have an organized and confident presentation!

Case.

I tend to intervene as infrequently as possible on the flow. This means that I will only vote on implicit/double turns and contradictions only if directly and clearly addressed as such. If you want me to vote on a dropped point, make sure it is explained/extended - don't blip out an argument in 2 seconds in the 1NC and turn case without proper extensions later. It also means that I will want to hear well explained uniqueness, warrants and link stories in every Ad/Disad that you run.

Don't make assumptions about the world and international actors without evidence - 'China Evil' is not a self-evident warrant. If you go for large impacts like 'Econ Collapse' be sure your internal links support the scale.

Conditionality is not an issue for me unless the opposition specifically wins a theory shell. The same goes for counter-plans - I will vote on nonfunctional, plan-inclusive or noncompetitive counter-plans until I hear arguments otherwise.

I'm open to most plans and philosophies unless they are obviously very morally wrong - I try not to bring personal sentiments into the debate. Case debate is very much appreciated, particularly if the scenarios are well developed. I will always factor in impact defense and probability into Ads/Disads. Please explain evidence in-round and not on cards.

Theory.

I'm open to theory. Interpretations should be communicated clearly to myself and the other team. Competing interpretations and reasonability are both valid perspectives with me. Don't blip out standards and voters taglines without explanation and contextualization. I will not intervene in cases of extra-topicality, although a good theory shell will be well received. I will not automatically drop debaters for running poor theory, but I will definitely disregard theory if the violation-standards-voters story is not developed properly.

Critiques.

I am fine with critiques on both the aff and neg if the harms of the resolution are stated. Please explain terminology very clearly and make no assumptions about theories that I or the other team should know. Long words should not be name-dropped without specific definition and contextualization to the case. Have warrants for your critiques and take care to explain your framework/alt solvency clearly for me to vote on those.

Overall.

I will be able to keep up with fast speeds but the imperative whilst doing so is that you remain clear - I will call 'clear' if I cannot understand what you are saying. Finally, please try to be respectful to the other team in both your personal conduct and the critiques/arguments you run.

I would like to see clear structure of speech and a factual- forward debate. Furthermore, I like to see structure in your advantages and roadmaps. Also, taglines are helpful. As I am a new judge, I want to see evidence for your points and emphasis on supporting facts. I take each person’s confidence into consideration as well, so make sure to plot out your points clearly and then speak. Interruption from any one team who aren’t calling a POI or POC will be considered a negative point.

I trust that each team will follow Parliamentary Debate rules. In rebuttals, make sure any dropped points be emphasized. In voters, two- world analysis is helpful. All in all, make sure your case is thorough and that I can follow it.

Speak slow and be organized. I vote on those who have the better contentions and refutations. 

Hi, my name is Meena Visht. Never debated personally. Dont spread, make good intiuitive arguments and make sure to be topic specific. DO NOT be rude (I will drop you). I like well articulated case debate with relevant warrants and terminalized impacts and weighing, so as long as you run that, you'll be fine. 

Experience:

EVHS Parli: 2012-2014, Parli captain, ranked within the top 50 of POI for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, 2014 TOC Participant

Debate Society of Berkeley: 2014-2015

I am a tab judge who will default to net benefits and the flow. For me, a debate is never won until one team makes it very clear that they've won in the PMR or LOR. To make it clear that you've won, I need clear impact weighing and analysis done in the final speech of both teams. If that weighing is not done, I will have to look at my flow and do the work for you. For speed, I will yell 'Clear!' once if I think you're speaking too fast and then begin to dig into your speaks for every time I have to yell clear after that. I will vote on theory or kritiks only if they're run well and are structured, I will drop you if your kritik makes no sense and you are running it for the sake of catching a team off-guard. Any other questions about my paradigm or judging philosophy can be asked before the round.

Amor Fati

I've had more experience in BP debating than APDA but have my roots in Asian Parliamentary Debate. I prefer and appreciate constructive debate that lays out comparison between both arguments. I prioritize debate that works on building their own argument and showing how it beats out the other instead of criticizing the other team's points. I think speaking slowly and getting the audience to hear the key points is much more important than saying a lot of words. Not too fond of K's.