I am a parent judge. I am looking for a clear articulation of the arguments. Clarity over speed. Respect each other.

Background: I'm a junior at UC Berkeley; did PF and lay LD in high school (qualled to TOC in PF); coached/judged for the first two years of college; haven't done anything debate-related in a year

Arguments: I DON'T EVALUATE THEORY and am not comfortable with kritiks but will try my best to evaluate them; more experience with util debate i.e. plans/counterplans/disads.

Framework: As long as the framework is well explained, I should be fine evaluating it. If you're going to go for framework, make sure you explain clearly why I should prefer your framework over your opponents.

Speed: I can handle a decent amount and if you flash me the case anything is fine. I’ve never been uncomfortable flowing a round before. If you’re going too fast or being unclear, I’ll tell you.

Things to Do: 1) Off-time road maps are great, but don't make them excessively long. Just give me the order of flows. 2) Crystallization. 2NRs and 2ARs should collapse.

I am aparent judge and have experience judging LD Novice rounds last year. I generally do not disclose the decision after of the round, but, will leave inputs on the ballot.

I am not comfortable with speed, but if you decide to you must be extremely clear.

If you spread you must flash the case/rebuttal to both me (email) and your opponent. Go slow and sign post on the taglines, analytics and especially during rebuttals. If you don't I probably won't understand the arguments you are making and won't vote on them. If you don't see me flowing/typing or I have a confused expression, I probably don't understand what you are saying and you should slow down. For each card you extend explain the impact and how it functions under the debate, the same goes with framework. I will only vote on things that are extended in your last speech.

K's:

Read slowly and explain clearly. If I don't understand it I won't vote on it.

Plan/Counterplan:

I will more comfortable with the plan/counterplan debate and will prefer if you run these types of arguments over K's and phil.

Theory:

I am only familiar with conditionality but I will be able to understand other theory arguments if they are clearly explained and have a real implication to the debate. Slow down on the interp and counter interps.

Have fun debating!

I have judged PF for more than 2 years and 4-5 times per year. I value clear speaking. Please be polite and respectful to each other during rounds.

Please weigh your arguments and spell out my ballot.

The need to speak, even if one has nothing to say, becomes more pressing when one has nothing to say, just as the will to live becomes more urgent when life has lost its meaning.

My actual paradigm: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KCHII3qVhIbGtqdos6dUGkuGa0WZZzw-L305yb8_43U/edit?usp=sharing

PARADIGM WRITTEN BY SON:

I am a (f)lay judge and have been judging for 4 years, please go slow and articulate well but that doesn't mean ignore the flow. No theory or K's. I am truth>tech. I approach the round without my biases but won't vote off very farfetched/squirrely args even if they are conceded. I probably won't vote for you because of a turn/DA either. UNLESS THEY ARE VERY EXPLICITLY WON AND WEIGHED AND COLLAPSED ON. I vote off impacts, weighing doesn't matter to me if you don't win the link. Be respectful in cross, speaking style dictates speaker points.

I am a parent judge with approximately 3 years of judging experience in PF and LD. I maintain a light flow but I am closer to a LAY judge than to a flow judge. Please NO SPREADING - please speak at a slow to medium pace so we can follow you along.

Also, I ask that you be respectful to opponents and not interrupt them during their time to talk. Please allow them to finish their point before you ask questions. Please do not shout or be too aggressive because that will lower you speaker points.

I am not a fan of Kritik or theory arguments, but will allow it if you take extra time to walk through your points slowly.

If there is a clear winner in the round, I will disclose. But more often I will take necessary time after the round to decide and then submit RFD and feedback through Tabroom.

I am a lay judge. Pretend I don't know anything. I would prefer no counterplans, theory, or kritiks. Add me on the email chain sritamayush@gmail.com

I have been judging High school PF for more than a year. My rules are simple, but I have been and will be a tough judge.

1- you need to have strong conviction on your story or claim

2- you need to sell me on your argument (easier if #1 above holds good)

3- your speech has to be coherent and connecting various ideas being presented

Beginning Speech -

I generally look for contentions directly related to the original resolution being asked for. The contentions have to show clear establishment of the position should layout the framework as to how they support the resolution or the negation that-of. I'd like to see at least 1 evidence per claim that will stand up even if challenged.

Crossfire and Argumentation -

I'd like to see teams challenge each other and defend their own vigorously, going to the core of the contentions, I'd like to see teams being able challenge every one of other's ideas, and counter them with evidence and data of their own. They have to be related to the argument presented and not way off. If a point goes unchallenged throughout, I will assume that you agree to that contention.

Summary Speech -

Tie this back to the original set of contentions and basis. no new ideas or evidence (unless discussed during CX), no straying of positions. plus points for those who expose inconsistencies or flaws in opponent's stories or facts (which means you paid attention to detail).

Speaker points -

Like I said, I am a tough judge and do not go generally beyond 28, unless you are exceptional. To go past that, you really need to show exceptional/extraordinary vocal skills, ideas, preparation and delivery. You do not normally get there without years of preparation. Also, as a general rule, only 5% and above are in the exceptional category. If you did reasonably well, then you can expect anywhere between 25-28.

Good Luck and Happy Debating!

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

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

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

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

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

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

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

Hello! I am a Dad of a public form debater and have been judging for 6 years. I mostly judge pufo so my paradigm is for that.

Judging Style:

- I like civility in the room. Please be respectful to everyone in the round.

- Please do not go too fast. If you do, I might miss some arguments.

- I may call for evidence if it is contested in the round or if one of the debaters asks me to.

- Please avoid technical language. If you do use it, please explain it.

- I will take notes during every speech. Please avoid new arguments in the final focus as I will most likely not evaluate it.

- Impacts are very important to me so start weighing as early in the round as possible.

- I will try my best not to intervene in the round, but I will not tolerate problematic arguments (racist, sexist, etc.)

Speaker Points:

- I award speaker points based on your fluency and confidence when speaking as well as your conduct in cross. If you are disrespectful or prevent your opponent from speaking, I will lower your speaker points.

Feel free to ask my clarifications on my paradigm before the round. I look forward to a good debate!

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.

My paradigm is pretty similar to this one: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=35843

*EXCEPTION* I will accept what the evidence says unless the other team asks enough questions that make it sound stupid. I will not vote for anything that sounds incredible or just completely dumb.

General:

1. Assume I'm bad at debate. I hate doing work.

2. If you read two cards correctly and they make sense, I will buy them instantly. (these are not specific for a reason)

• Guardian card that says 420.
• A card that says chance of civil war jumps to ~77.6%.

3. I don't know how to evaluate theory. Shoutout to Kyle Chong.

Speaks:

1. I don't often give 30s but if you make me laugh or make me cringe, I’ll give you a 30. Also, if you make a half decent pun with the topic, I’ll give you a 30.

2. If you go more than 5 seconds over time I’ll take off 0.5 speaks per second after.

3. I’ll take off a point every time a terrible analogy is used. (selling an apple for $5 is not comparable to international trade)

Evidence:

1. Make me call for it. I also hate reading a lot, so don't tell me to read it unless you think it’s critical.

2. If you read a card I know, you should hope you're not misrepresenting it.

Case read:

Speed is not an issue.

Cross-x:

1. You get first question if you speak first.

2. Don't be mean.

3. Refer to point 2.

4. Refer to point 2.

5. Point 2 is really important.

Summary/FF:

1. Anything works.

2. No new evidence in FF.

Argument stuff:

1. If you read a link turn and say "if you don't buy that", then proceed with an impact turn, you better explain why I can't evaluate your impact turn under your link turn. Otherwise, it's a double turn.

2. If you read anything diabetes or sugar related, I will not like the arg. Although it is important to recognize that whether I like the argument does not matter. If it’s well developed, I'll vote for it.

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.