I am a flay judge. I prefer you signpost your arguments and please do not run any K's, theory, or topicalities. Do not spread through your rounds. Please structure your arguments to the best of your ability.

About me: I competed for DVC in 2018 in NPDA, IPDA, Prose, & Impromptu. My partner and I placed 3rd for state in NPDA.

Policy: Add my email address to link chains for policy rounds "kpsbal@ucdavis.edu". Don't just tell me your impact outweighs your opponent's. Tell me how with numbers/evidence. Tell me what arguments to extend, and give me an impact calculus. That being said, don't speed too fast. If you are too fast for me, I will let you know. If your opponents are too fast, you can request them to slow down. If they don't make the debate accessible, I will vote them down for it.

I dislike K's and Speed. I will not vote you down for either unless your opponents give me a good enough reason to. I try to vote exactly how the debaters tell me to, so set a clear criteria and ALWAYS tie back to it. You must be able to convince me about your impacts and your story.

My least favorite thing to see is unsportsmanlike conduct. This is a game, have fun, and respect your opponents.

I like most procedurals as long as they are actually needed and not just thrown in. Proven abuse is always better than potential abuse.

Spreading: If I cannot keep up with what you are saying, it will not go down on my flow. That being said, I will always let the speaker know if they are going too fast for me. I can flow relatively fast. I also will not vote you down on speed unless your opponents call you out on it.

K's:Just because I do not like K's, does not mean I will not vote for one. I will only vote down a K if your opponents do a good job attacking your K.

Overall, be nice to each other. I vote exactly how the debators tell me to. I dislike K's and Speed. I will not vote you down for either unless your opponents give me a good enough reason to. I try to vote exactly how the debaters tell me to, so set a clear criteria and ALWAYS tie back to it. You must be able to convince me about your impacts and your story.

I was a successful policy debater in high school, many years ago. I've been judging parli rounds for the last 2.5 years. I can flow your round and assess your argumentation, but I won't be up on the latest debate jargon. You'll need to explain the arguments you make and not assume that a quick label or phrase can make an argument for you. I can flow and follow a fast spread debate, but my preference is for speaking that is not faster than normal speech.

I will judge based on the content of the round, and in principal I'm open to any argument you want to make. I enjoy creative arguments, but I'm skeptical of theory that allows either side to ignore the topic or avoid clash. I expect rebuttal speakers to focus on the critical issues, sum up the debate with intelligence, and explain why they've won and how to make a decision.

I am a parent judge. I have judged only a couple of tournaments. Please avoid speed and jargon, and explain your arguments clearly.

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.

I'm a parent judge and have only judged in a few tournaments. My background is in mathematics, so I appreciate well constructed and logically presented arguments, and clear explanations (e.g. of why your argument is best during rebuttal). I am not enthused by jargon, dubious statistics, or excessive speed.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

Please speak slowly and clearly, no spreading!

Make sure you signpost your contentions and have clear structure. 

Please, NO kritik's or complicated theory. 

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round. Good luck!

I have done LD debate, so I do have some experience with debate.

I will award high speaks unless you say something offensive or give me any other reason not to.

I'm a college student. I did Parli, LD, PF, and Congress for four years-- I understand how it works and I was pretty good at it. Now things you may need to know:

Speed:

I'll be able to understand you if you spread, but I'll be upset about it. It's not a skill that will help you in the real world. I can only write so quickly, so if you talk faster than I can write, that's on you.

K's/Theory/All that Jazz:

I get it. It can be fun. Hypothetically, it's a pretty cool tool to help develop the debate and its competition. In practice, it's almost always people that don't like the topic trying to avoid debating it. If you have a legitimate reason to run it, I'm not going to dock you for trying, but if there's any inkling in my mind that you're using a pre-written K or doing it to get the upper hand, I won't be happy and it will likely impact my decision. Debate the topic.

Impacts:

Impacts matter in real life, they matter in the debate, and they matter to me. Have them and make sure you link into them.

Plans:

I don't have much to say about this. Do what you want, make it make sense.

Voters:

I appreciate a World Comparison or listing of Voter Issues in your respective last speeches. Again, impacts matter.

Evidence:

Evidence rules are weird in Parli. Most of you reading this don't know them (don't pretend you read the CHSSA rules*, no one reads those). I don't care if you lie. I'm not going to look up a piece of evidence you give me unless the debate inexplicably comes down to two conflicting pieces of evidence. I'm not encouraging you to lie--if I know you're lying, it may impact my decision. If you're called out for lying, I'm not going to support you. If you can get away with it, more power to you. I care a lot more about logical reasoning and historical examples than I do statistics (stats are unreliable and easily misread).

Roadmaps:

I like roadmaps. I like off-time roadmaps. Make them less than 10 seconds.

General:

Have fun! Y'all spend a lot of time on debate and you should enjoy it, you don't want to look back on these days as just a bunch of work and frustrating wins/losses. That doesn't mean to make it a joke. You can and should ask me any questions you want about my judging before the round--I'll repeat most of this anyways. Also, idk if I'm allowed to disclose after round so I will default to not doing it, but if you want feedback from me after round feel free to ask and I'll tell you what I can without disclosing. Good luck!

*In case you feel like reading them: http://www.chssa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Article.XI_.CHSSABylawsConstitution2017-11.pdf

Spread is a cancer on the body of debate which must be excised. If I can’t understand what you are saying, how can I vote for you?

If you run a lot of theory, you need to convince me why I should care - I am not an expert. The last time I took a debate class, you weren't born yet.

Skeptical of Kritik, but if you can persuasively tie to the actual topic, it could work with me.

I want to see engagement and clash more than anything else. This should not be two teams talking about two worlds. To win, you need to address what the other team is saying. This is a simple point, but sometimes overlooked. This happens most frequently when the negative team has a Kritik that they have clearly practised and polished. If you can't relate it persuasively to the actual topic and what your opponents are saying, it's not going to work no matter how smooth your canned speech is.

I strive to be a tabula rasa. If you tell me the moon is made of green cheese, it is, until the other team refutes it. However, the blatantly fabricated statistics in use by some teams are tiresome. Once you get into "pants on fire" territory, I am going to start docking speaker points even if I have to give you the win. FYI, for the team faced with the "pants on fire" argument, you have to point it out to me. It may not take a lot of evidence to refute an argument postualted without warrants, but you still have to call your opponents on it. If you don't, they win the point by default.

I am basically a "flay" judge, meaning I am a lay judge who attempts to keep a flow chart. If you help me by making your arguments easy to flow, you are more likely to win.

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 was an on-topic debater for 3 years during high school and then did parliamentary debate for 3 years during college. I have judged high school parliamentary debate in the Bay Area since 2015.

I believe that debate should help students develop their persuasive speaking and analytical thinking skills, and that these skills should be applicable to the real world - e.g., trying to persuade a judge in the courtroom or your boss at work. Therefore, I don't like "spread" debating or the usage of lots of jargon. No one in the real world talks like a "spread" debater (except, perhaps, an auctioneer).

I am a parent judge with some judging experience.  I will be flowing so please don’t misinterpret my not looking at you as lack of attention.  I put aside any personal opinions on resolutions and will be persuaded by your cogent, articulate arguments. 

I will entertain Kritiks but will place a strong weight on their effective rebuttal. I place value on the educational merit of the issue in the resolution.

Please speak clearly and no spreading.  If I can’t capture your arguments in the flow, then I can’t weigh it for judging purposes.

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.

I'm a parent judge with four years of experience. I keep track of flow and will buy dropped arguments. Neg, make sure you explain why the aff plan causes more harm than good, not just why it won't work. If your main argument is solvency I will probably vote aff if they make it clear there is a problem in the status quo. CPs are great just make sure they are mutually exclusive. I will always vote lives over econ, so if your main argument is econ make sure you terminalize impacts.

This is my fourth year judging parliamentary debate. I'm a flay judge, and I'm tab so I'll probably vote on anything if it's explained well enough. I've been judging for a hot minute so I know my way around structure. Slow down (especially during online tournaments) and let me write the arguments down on my flow, and don't use debate jargon that a regular person wouldn't know. It's your job to explain things to me, so if I don't catch something that's on you. Please give me background about topics and explain your link chain arguments. I will evaluate t shells but I don't know the jargon/structure so please explain fairness arguments well. Do not run kritiks, I do not know what they are and I am not familiar with the philosophy, so you will probably lose if you run them. Perms are fine, I think everything's fine just explain everything. Make my job easy as a judge, don't be rude, and have a fun debate!

I'll start with a little background on me. I was a policy debater for 4 years at College Prep. I went to the ToC twice, with 3 bids and a 4-3 record my senior year. As a debater, I made a huge variety of different arguments, some very critical (Piratical Pedagogy), some very policy (Process CPs). I am currently studying computer science and mathematics at Harvey Mudd College.

In general, I'm a fan of explicit line-by-line debate, and muddling up my flow with implied clash will not help you win. I will try to reward depth of explanation and strong comparative impact work.

Things I default to, but can be persuaded otherwise: offense-defense, utilitarianism, functional competition, competing interpretations, conditionality.

Case - I love good case debate. Internal link chains in policy debate are usually terrible, but too often they go unquestioned. I'm not afraid to vote on a good case turn and some really strong internal link defense.

DA - Case outweighs is the Aff's best argument against every DA. These debates are usually decided by whoever does the best comparitive impact calculus.

CP - Presumption flips Aff when the Neg goes for a CP, so make sure you have a clear, independent net benefit. Functional competition, not potential abuse, is the best argument against an abusive CP.

K - I like critical arguments, but I think that too often debaters just spew jargon instead of actually explaining what they're talking about. Warrant your claims, use historical examples, really explain what your kritik means, and you'll probably win--don't, and you'll probably lose.

K Affs - I ran a lot of these, and I'm totally fine with them, but I'm also not afraid to vote on framework if the Aff doesn't have a good defense of why they get to do what they do. On the framework debate, I am slightly more likely to vote on an out-of-debate impact like political change or democratic engagement than an in-debate impact like equitable ground or inclusivity.

T - I can be persuaded otherwise, but by default, I will first decide on which interpretation won, then determine whether the Aff meets that interpretation; that means that "we meet" is offense, not defense. I haven't been following the current topic very closely, so I'm not going to know if you're telling the truth if you say something like "there are only three viable Affs on this topic, and this is one of them!", so you're going to need to explain any claims about the nature of the topic.

Theory - Debate is a game; that being said, fairness is an internal link, not an impact. If you want to be able to go for a theory argument in the last speech, it has to be more than a one-sentence blip before that.

Finally, please be civil both to your fellow debaters and to me. That means don't insult anyone, and don't disrupt my judging (stealing my ballot, for example).

Speak clearly. Sign post where ever you can. End on time.

In terms of speaking, please be slow, loud, and clear. Do not run attrocious Kritiks, and explain any topicality arguments. Please explain any debate jargon if used. I would like signposting and clear arguments that I can flow.

Updated Aug 25, 2022

History:

I coached and competed for Dougherty Valley. Graduated in 2018.

General:

The greatest question debate ever asked me: how can a judge be tabula rasa?

Everything in this paradigm is a default so argue on them if you don't agree:

Impact calculus is your job, preventing judge intervention is mine. Use a point of order anyway though.

Do whatever overview and road maps you want off time, regulate each other on this.

Topicality:

The topic is owned by the debaters.

Follow it or don't but I will prefer enforcement of the rules of the debate form.

Breaking those rules means I need to hear some theory first.

Theory:

Theory only works if you follow the structure.

A priori - prioritization of the largest issue is the entire point of theory.

That doesn't mean I throw away B, C, or D because anyone can turn them back into A.

Default competing interpretations.

Default no RVI - you should only waste as much time on theory as you want to.

The whole point of debate is that you've read and thought about the rules.

Speed:

We all type and write at different speeds throughout the debate.

Slow down when people ask you to and it'll be quite difficult to turn this into a voting issue with me.

Prefer yelling clear over slow. Use this power sparingly.

Kritiks:

Focus on the philosophy and structure, that's the whole point.

The only problem I've ever had with these arguments is when someone uses them so fast their opponent can't even understand.

Our mutual understanding of what is going on is the most important thing to me in the debate.

Plans & Counter-plans:

Plans and counter-plans are a useful stucture in any debate form.

Run perms to test the competition.

Severance is fine, but be careful if you're hit with theory.

Speaker Points:

I'll set this based on how respectful the debate ended up being.

I'm happy to answer questions - humzamuhammadkhan@gmail.com

Fluent expression, logical structure, good rebuttal (if applicable) are important elements of a good debate/speech in my view.

I am a parent who has been judging for several years. Please speak at an ordinary, conversational rate, track your own time, and be sure to tell me your name the first time you speak. I usually don't give feedback in person, but I try to provide detailed written comments.

Tldr; I vote largely on the flow. Please impact to the criteria, CP kicking is fine, weigh in the rebuttals so I don't have to. I dislike theory, but will vote on it given a compelling reason.

Background

I've been involved with parliamentary debate for 10 years. I started by competing for Windsor High School under Coach Bryan St. Amant. After graduating I went on to work at the Stanford National Forensics Institute before coming to Berkeley, where I majored in Philosophy. I also debated for the Debate Society of Berkeley (APDA circuit), and was the Varsity Coach for Berkeley High School for 3 years.

Basics

What my background means is I know debate, and can listen to/flow just about anything you care to argue. I love debates with strong clash and great impacts (who doesn't?). If you give me arguments with strong link stories and believable impacts, which you weigh in the rebuttal, winning my ballot shouldn't be terribly hard. I'll do my best not to intervene, and I think most debates can have a winner without intervention. That being said, I will do intuitive weighing if neither team does it for me (this means you should absolutely do weighing in your rebuttals to make me not do this). Also something to note: if the round boils down to a factual dispute with no clear winner on the evidence presented, I may google it.

I don't take issue with round strategy, as long as you still uphold your side of the motion. Have a CP or don't, kick it or don't, I don't really care--just be clear about what you're arguing for.

Above all, make sure you tell me why things matter by the end of the round, utilizing the criteria and weighing against opposing impacts. The criteria isn't there for decoration, and I'm thoroughly convinced that the best high schools rounds are the ones where the debaters focus their argumentation on winning the criteria. The team that's convinced me they've won the criteria is the team that will most likely win the round.

Theory

I can most accurately be described as an "old school judge." I'm not a huge fan of theory, so run it at your own risk. Like I said earlier, however, I flow. So, if your opponents run theory and you don't respond successfully I will vote on theory despite my personal distaste for it. I have a functional understanding of how most theory works, but not an in-depth understanding of K literature or rarer theory. If you do wish to run theory, be clear and try not to spread too much. This means for a K, don't just say the name of some old dead philosopher and expect me to know what you're arguing--if you're going to talk about Foucault then explain his argument. If you run T, make sure you demonstrate the abuse. If you run a K or any more outlandish theory, you should and must warrant for me why it belongs in the round and in debate.

*Overt racism, sexism, ableism, xenophobia, queerphobia, or transphobia in rounds will result in a loss and a huge reduction in speaker points from me, whether or not your opponents run a full K on it. Do not do this. Ever.*

Speaking Preferences

Don't spread out your opposing team. Ever. Seriously. There's a format of debate where that kind of strategy is welcome, and it isn't this one. If your opponents call clear or ask you to slow down, do so. Also, be sure not to use excessive levels of jargon if your opponents clearly aren't keeping up. It muddles the round for no good reason. Finally, please don't heckle/tagteam. It's annoying and interrupts your partner's speech.

I highly appreciate clarity in the round. That means, wherever possible, you shouldn't be jumping around on the flow. Try to keep your responses linear and precise (don't repeat yourself over and over). If the round has unintuitive framework, take the time to explain it to avoid having a bad round. Roadmaps are great, but be sure you actually stick to them.

I place a relatively high level of value on eloquence. I believe debate is as much a rhetorical activity as it is a critical analysis/strategy-based one, so even though I'll vote for you on the flow, my speaker points are meant to reward clarity and style. Also, don't be a jerk please! You're all wonderful people and its beneath you to misbehave in round.

POIs/POOs/RVIs

Take POIs, especially if you're running theory. Try to take at least one, but no more than five/six--I want to listen to your content, not only your answers to questions. If there's a new argument in the rebuttal, it is the responsibility of the debaters to point it out. If a Point of Order is called (assuming it's valid) I won't consider the argument at all, and I will look to my own flow to check. Unlike many other judges on this circuit, I won't discount RVIs on face. I don't think its productive to exclude entire arguments when they utilize the same standards most theory runs on (education, fairness, etc.). That said, I don't have a particular preference for them either, so, like any other argument, give me a strong link, demonstrate abuse, and finish with a good impact.

Best of luck in your rounds--I look forward to some good debates!

Observe Silence when not Speaking: Please respect the speaking team by observing silence when it is not your turn. If you need to communicate with you partner, do it on paper. DO NOT WHISPER while the other team is speaking.

No tag-teaming - do not interject or add onto your partner's speech.

Debate Speed: Keep your speech at a normal, conversational pace. If I cannot keep up with you, then I will not be able to consider your arguments thoroughly. You will be better served by having fewer, well articulated arguments than by trying to cram in extra points.

Theory: Arguments based in theory will be considered, but I don't give a lot of weight to them. I care most about your ideas and ability to structure an argument.

Other:

Presentation is important: eye contact, posture, clarity of speech and appropriate volume. Please speak loudly and clearly enough for me to hear you.

15 second grace period to finish your speech after time, after that you will loose speaker points.

1. Please make sure you signpost your contentions.

2. I like to follow logical and clearly structured arguments.

3. I expect to see good engagement and effective rebuttal of your opponent’s arguments.

4. I’m open to Kritik- take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. But, as I mentioned earlier, my decisions are based exclusively on the arguments and counter arguments presented with strongly backed-up concrete facts or examples.

5. No Spreading, be respectful of your allotted time, your audience and have fun!!

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.

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.

Former LD Debater. K's are fine, speed is fine. Any dropped arguments will be flowed through with impacts (but can still be outweighed by other points).

Please speak at a reasonable rate, define terms and make clear links from policy to impacts.Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition or that your opposition has gone off topic. Don't abuse POIs or POOs. Neg Counter-plans are acceptable . The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.

For parliamentary debate, I prefer clear, organized argumentation and reasoning over speed and jargon. I can follow a spread (my background was in policy debate) but parliamentary debate is a whole different event.

I flow, and use the flow in my decision, but not all arguments are created equal. You can win 4 points, your opponent only one, but they can still win the round if they convince me that their one point outweighs all others. Tie your arguments to the resolution, and show how they tie into your judging criteria. Speaking style matters in my decision too - a smooth, organized, persuasive speaker will have the edge over disorganized and choppy presentation.

On the subject of organization, I appreciate the 5 seconds spent to tell me whether you are starting with their case, or your own contentions.

No strong opinion on POIs. Nice to take one, but if you really are short on time I won't be offended if you don't take any.

I leave my opinions and knowledge at the door of the round. I am willing to follow most arguments if you can make them stick.

However, I am really REALLY sick of overly clever debate tactics in lieu of actual debating. I am particularly tired of kritiks. They are a technique used by lazy debaters to avoid having to actually listen, reason, and create counterarguments. Rather than pay attention and use their brains, they pull out a precanned K and spend their time on that, instead of actually debating. I expect to hear reasoning, analysis, and argumentation on the actual resolution - not endless whining about how abusive the other team is. Basically I want to see a debate.

I also hate tag-teaming. I believe that each speaker should do their own speech, answer any POIs, and generally do their part. I don't mind if you pass your partner a note while they are speaking, but that’s about it. I will only write down arguments advanced by the actual speaker.

In the end, the most important thing is to have a respectful debate with plenty of clash. Listen to each other, analyze what the other speaker said, and respond appropriately. And remember that this is supposed to be fun.

Former high school debater a long time ago.  (Think 1970's, big hair, polyester).  This season I have been judging Parli at a variety of tournaments (all levels) as well as some IE events.   I'm getting more used to the terms and jargon, but I like clearly laid out arguments.   

I’ve judged/coached most formats at this point, but my personal experience is some hs parli and then BP for Berkeley.

Debate is a game, so I’ll vote on anything. While I competed in less technical events in college, I enjoy complex rounds if they're interesting so please do try new things.

Speed's okay but slow down for tags and expect me to miss some nuance if it's very fast. If your opponents ask you to slow down, I expect you to give them the opportunity to engage.

Otherwise, run what you want! I'm very far removed from current trends in debate, but I love strong + analytical warrants, good linking, and fun strategic decisions. I tend to find super stock DAs and Ks or a heavy reliance on evidence quite boring.

I am a parent volunteer and have judged at a few tournaments before. I also debated three years of policy debate for Loyola High School (LA) and then a year of parliamentary at Princeton University. However, that was some time ago, and I am not as familiar with theory and K debate. So, if you run theory, please explain all lingo, and please avoid K's altogether because I may not be able to follow.

Please speak clearly and try not to go too fast so I can flow your arguments. Signpost and flush out your arguments; I won't buy a point only supported by numbers and stats, you need to explain to me why that evidence matters and why your argument is true. Towards the end of your rebuttals speech, make sure to close off the debate and tell me why you think you should win, tell me what you want me to vote on and why.

Misrepresenting your opposition's arguments may be good enough to win you the debate (if they don't call you out on it), but it sure won't win you any speaker points. Be respectful to opponents/partners/judges/audience. Ethics violations will heavily influence speaker points. I will generally score speakers on a range between 24-30 speaker points (although I reserve the right to go below that for serious ethics violations). I will consider both argumentation and presentation but generally weight the former above the latter. Points for humor if you can pull it off!

Debate is a discourse, in which both sides offer arguments that are both solidified, and base on belief. It isn't a school paper you're doing for points, therefore, please have heart in what you say. It is a discourse, please treat it like one. I am not a tabula rasa judge, but I will be non-bias from the perspective of a moderate

Stronger arguments > Many Arguments

I will not accept theory arguments not related to rules. If the other team put you at a disadvantage, argue on their probability.

Please also do argue from your heart, emotionality overrules reading from a piece of paper. If you do focus too much from reading off the paper, depending on the strength of the argument, you might have lower speaker points

Finally, please debate slowly, I will deduct points for spreading.

As a parent judge, I prefer for debaters to have structure in speeches (ie. roadmaps/order, signposting, etc.) so that I can clearly flow down contentions. It is preferred that debaters time themselves and not rely on the judge to time speeches or give time signal. 

I judge based on the notes I take. I try hard not to inject my own knowledge and opinions into a debate.

Please engage one another's arguments and provide clash. Please provide well-developed arguments with good warrant and impact. I would be more impressed with one to three well-developed, deep, and logical arguments over eight superficial, conclusory, and/or flat-out-ridiculous arguments.

Theory arguments have their place. If you make a theory argument, please convince me that your theory argument is actually worth caring about and is relevant to this topic, to this debate, and to your deserving to win.

Please be a human talking to another human and not a space alien talking to a computer. This means (1) you should be respectful to all, (2) if you speak too fast, I will be unable to write down all you say, and what I do not write down will probably not help you, and (3) if you decide to use jargon, please explain the jargon as if I don't know what it means. Debate is supposed to develop great leaders, and great leaders can communicate to all people, not just to other specialized people exactly like themselves.

Good luck!