Background & Experience: 

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

General Philosophy:

I am okay with listening to any argument any you should choose to run, provided that you lay out the argument clearly and tells me why it wins you the ballot.

I view high school debate as both a competitive activity for the sake of competition and an arena for students to enrich their education by becoming better thinkers and learning more about the world. As such, I will remove myself from the round as much as humanly possible, and base my decision on my best objective evaluation of the arguments made. I flow very carefully. I will not get in your way, so do what you want argumentatively and you can expect me to evaluate it. 

My debate style is pretty diverse — I have a good footing in running and hitting normative topical positions, kritiks, theory, and anything in between. My default layering of the round is that theory comes before the kritik and the kritik comes before case, but, in round, tell me what arguments you want to come first (regardless of if it is the same as my default) as I will not do that work for you. 

Weighing is very important to me, so do a good amount of work analyzing the impacts throughout the round, and especially at the end, in the rebuttals. Tell me what impacts matter the most, why they matter the most, and why they win you the round, regardless of the position you’re banking your strategy on.  

Spreading:

I'm chill with spreading. I will get down your arguments on my flow and will reward higher speaker points to spreading that is exceptionally clear, easy to follow, and/or engaging to listen to. Pointers: 

(1) Slow down for taglines, texts, when you switch to a different sheet of paper or argument, and other important parts of your position as you deem fit. 

(2) Try not to slur or be repetitive. Spreading is only strategic if you can do it efficiently and clearly.

(3) Be considerate to your opponents. If they are not familiar with spreading, then try to be inclusive of them. Give them texts, answer their POIs, and try to be accommodating of their requests if they have any. It really sucks to get spread out of a round -- doesn't mean you should not spread, just means you should try to be a good sport about it. 

Kritiks:

Go for it. I dig it. I ran kritiks quite a bit, and enjoy watching a good kritikal round. I am familiar with most of the authors that debaters commonly cite, like Marx, Nietzsche, Agamben, Foucault, Baudrillard, Wilderson, and the rest of the gang. I’m also chill with performances. If you can surprise me with a kritik that isn’t so common, I’ll be happy and give you props, but explain it well. Regardless of whether or not I know the literature, I will not do work for you filling in arguments, explanations or warrants. Pointers: 

(1) Links. Please, run links that interact very specifically with the affirmative position. A few safe generic links are okay, but don’t bank entirely on them. If you can’t come up with any specific links, that means one of two things: one, you aren’t familiar enough with your kritik, or, two, the kritik doesn’t apply well. Both are not good positions to be in. 

(2) Alt & Alt-Solvency. Explain what your alternative does and how it solves for the impacts you outlined in the rest of your K. 

(3) I think framing on the K is pretty important, so don’t skate over that part and assume I’ll just give you reasons why the K comes first. Tell me through what lens I should evaluate the round and why. Again, I will not do work for you on the K. 

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES: 

I ran K-Affs a few times and have hit them plenty of times. I’m okay with them. Just make sure justify them well, as you should with any kritikal position. 

Theory:

I also dig theory. I ran theory quite a bit, from your standard shells to some more out-there shells. Although I view theory as a way to check against real abuse, I’ll listen to and vote for any shell if you win the flow. Pointers: 

(1) I default to competing interpretations. 

(2) Be very clear and specific with your interpretations. I will take interpretations literally, meaning, if the other team manages to find a lawyer-esque way to meet your interpretation and its logically valid, I will not give much credence to a backtrack along the lines of “well, you know what we meant.” 

(3) Ground is the most important standard to me, as it is kind of an umbrella for all fairness-related standards. However, you should still weigh your standards if you want to win the theory debate. 

(4) I will not do work for you on the evaluation of the theory. If you want theory to come first, tell me that and tell me why. 

(5) I have a lower threshold to voting on RVI's than most judges, but still have a pretty high threshold. You'd have to do a lot of pretty compelling work on the RVI to use it to get the ballot.

Straight Up Case Debate:

I very much enjoy a well-informed and thought out, normative, topical debate. Well constructed, intrinsic advantages and disadvantages, impact framing from the get-go, and smart strategies increase your chances of getting my ballot. Brink scenarios are almost always more compelling than linear advantages/disadvantages, and try to get your arguments to go in the right direction from uniqueness to links to impacts. 

I’m okay with CPs that change implementation methods, conditionality, dispositionality, and PICs. 

Presentation: 

Even flow debate, at its core, is a persuasive activity. Treat it as such. Don’t completely brush off presentation — a confident portrayal of an argument makes it much more appealing to a judge.  

I am okay with tag-teaming, just don’t go overboard about it. 

Other Key Points: 

(1) I like gutsy strategic moves. However, don’t just make a gutsy move for the sake of making a gutsy move, because while I will be amused and pleased, I will not vote for you if it doesn’t win you the round. 

(2) Add some personality, and be yourself. You’re real people speaking to real people — rounds that feel like that are more engaging to watch and partake in, in my opinion.

(3) If you kick something, kick it properly by extending defense. I won’t shadow kick for you if the other team calls you out on the shadow kick.

(4) Be good people. It'd be nice to see the debate community try to spread some love. 

As a 2 year judge in Parli Debate, and an ex- parliamentarian, I am a big believer in a well planned, organized and fully developed debate.  I track facts and statements and believe that a un-refuted statement becomes fact and therefore passes through when not challenged.   I am a big believer in developing a path of your presentation and following it.  Your sources should come from well respected established outlets/ people, but I do not need to agree with your argument to believe in your debate, and to give you the win.  This goes with your sources and questions. 

Set the ground rules of the debate prior to starting, and manage your time well.  Notes are fine by me, as long as they are not used more than just as reference notes, or reciting a quote, or statistic. 

Don't get too deep into terminology, as I see facts, presented but if it is used, it had better be used correctly and stand the rebuttal of the opposition.  If it does not, it will be counted heavily against the party.

Speed- I am not a huge believer in speed talking at this point in any debaters career.  Being well spoken, articulate and clear in your thought and presentation is essential to great speaker points.

I am not a huge believer in using rules of debate as a reason to challenge to a win, it does weigh in my judging, but not as the sole rationale.  It should be pointed out, but should not be a reason for a debater to win.  though it will make a huge difference in scoring.  I believe in an active debate format and I encourage challenges and conflict, when appropriate.  Too many challenges is looked at as a negative.  Make sure that your challenges are accurate, appropriate to the topic of the debate meet the goals of your Aff or Neg agenda. 

Speed: Even though I seem like I’m on it, I’m not a huge fan of debaters sounding like auctioneers. You’ll know you’re going too fast when I put my pen down and stop flowing. From that point on, it’s kinda your fault if I miss any arguments. 

Ads/ Disads: Signpost your uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact; do not use contention format. It’s a lot easier for me to evaluate when the proper structure is used. You really need to give me reasons to prefer your impacts over the other team’s impacts. 

Impact Calculus: 

1. Magnitude
2. Probability
3. Timeframe

In that order. 

Kritiks: High school K’s really aren’t that great. They’re typically vague and don’t give me a great reason to vote on them. Only run a K if you know it’s the shit. It’s gotta be creative, unique, and something that really makes me think. If you run cap or biopower or something you’re probably gonna lose right there.

Speaks: Everyone gets a 29, the team that makes me laugh gets 30’s. Most teams get 29’s. Most people aren’t fully :(.

I hate: 

1. When a team pretends to believe in their advocacy. Who are you kidding lol.
2. When a speaker doesn’t take any questions.
3. Thanking before speeches. 
4. Starting with a quote. 
5. Taking yourself too seriously.
6. Trying to deliver me an IE type speech. These people are a special type of monster. I will give them 20’s. I prefer a casual delivery. 

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. 

Two things: (1) Do NOT speak too quickly and (2) signpost.

I am a lay judge (debate parent) and have done parli judging at several tournaments. Don't spread, don't give me k's or t's or whatever - I don't understand any of it. Instead, follow the debate rules, make good arguments and show your speaking skills - have fun! Ask before the round if you have any questions.

I was a four year policy debater in high school, but that was more than 30 years ago. I aim to be tabula rasa. I appreciate clear explanations of arguments and how they interact with other arguments made by partners and opponents.

Hello everyone! I'm a relatively new judge so please bear with me.   :)

Parli Debate:

Please refrain from the use of speed/spreading (I can handle a faster paced speech but not too fast)

Please do not present K-theories

It would be preferred if you kept your voices to a medium/low tone (don't shout)

Avoided to many POIs (I don't mind the use of them, but don't abuse them)

If you can, please use a source or two (although you don't have to)

Organization is key! (I judge primary on flow)

Impromptu:

No canned speeches! 

I am a newer parliamentary debate judge (and have gone through the parent training and 6 rounds).  

Constraint: Los Altos High School

Preference: Please speak clearly and slowly.

I plan to do flowing.   It will help me if you go slowly and bullet your construction and rebuttals.  If you are speaking to fast I will not be able to flow. 

Quality is more important than quantity.

Be respectful and observe the tournament rules.  I will protect if you are a member of the opposition or government and introduce a new argument during the rebuttal (the prime minister should acknowledge during their rebuttal that a new argument was introduced by the MO).

Raise your hand on POIs and POOs, and wait for the speaker to acknowledge. 

Remember to have fun!

Parent judge here so please steer away from theory unless you really think the other team is being abusive (so that means you should not be running frivolous theory in a round where I am the judge) and you'll have to explain it super clearly-- so don't use jargon in terms of theory. I'm also not super familiar with kritiks so don't run those!

Basically: don't run super techy arguments. keep it simple. stick to case debate if you can. if you veer off case debate there should be a REALLY good reason why.

I'm also not too comfortable with speed, so please be clear when speaking and DO NOT SPREAD.

Most importantly, have a fun debate! Don't be mean or bigoted or else I definitely won't vote for you :D

Have a great debate!

-Ana

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

Hi! I'm Silvana, and I'm a debate parent.

I have only judged a few debate rounds in the past, so I don't have too many preferences. I don't like perms, K's, or anything out of the blue. Ask POI's! And take POI's as well! Don't be condescending, and please talk at a reasonable speed. Good luck :)

Have judged Parli for 5 years, also some policy and LD rounds.

No preference to speak rate.

Be respectful of your opponents

Organize your thought before speaking and clearly articulate your arguments in normal speed of speech

Keep your position without deploying your opponents' plan with slight modification

Teams who manage to defend more key contentions will get more points

N/A

Updated 3/25/22

TLDR; I believe that true tab judges don't exist, but I will listen to any argument and evaluate it within the context of the round. I debated policy and public forum in high school and did NPDA in college.

I competed in debate throughout middle school, high school, and college for a combined total of 8 years of competitive experience. I graduated from a small high school program where I primarily competed in policy and national circuit PF, including the TOC. In college, I competed in NPDA at California Lutheran University. I have done every style of debate at some point, so I am familiar with and ready to listen to anything. For my first year and a half of debate, I was relatively traditional (think politics DA every round), but I became increasingly progressive as my career progressed (i.e. I ran critical race theory on the PF circuit).

Kritiks: I'm familiar with the literature base of most and can comprehend anything. Structure is very important to me here because it is very easy to get bogged down in a poorly structured K debate. If you're reading something kritikal, please explain your K whether I know it or not. If you can't explain your K, I'm probably not going to be super compelled by it. I am a firm believer that debate should be accessible to everyone, which means that your poorly articulated BwO arguments will lose to me every time (especially if you can't answer questions about it). All that being said, I was the kid that read genealogical interrogations in PF, so I will be happy with just about anything.

CPs: AFF has to read a perm. It takes less time to say "perm: do both" than it will take your opponent to respond no matter their WPM. CPs should have solvency to be compelling.

Theory: I love a good theory debate, but make sure you have all parts of a shell and give me reasons why the T matters. If you're answering theory, I prefer line by line down the shell than a blanket response. I don't think RVIs are the best strategy against theory, but I am willing to listen to and vote on them if the teams feel it is necessary.

DAs: Before reading the DA you are considering, ask yourself "does this make sense?" If the answer is no, try again. As long as you can articulate uniqueness, links, internals, and impacts, the DA should make sense. I have heard and voted on some out there DAs, but my threshold for explanation remains high here.

Speaker Points: I think they are useless and generally exclusionary, but I will assign them as the tournament requires. 30 speaks theory takes 10 seconds... do with that what you will.

Everything else: Give me solid impacts and tell me why you're winning. Good impact calc is the fastest path to my ballot. I am fine with any speed and can flow whatever. I recognize that CX is binding, but I don't flow it, so say it in a speech if you want it on my flow.

My general philosophy is that debate should be accessible and equitable. That means a couple of things that could help or hurt you. For one, I am receptive to arguments with an impact in the debate space. It also means I am sensitive to things like gendered language, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. I believe that you should not run an argument that you are not passionate about, and likewise that if you are passionate about something that you should run it no matter how strong your coach thinks it is.

If you have questions, please ask in round!

If I judged you and you have more questions for me that you didn't get to ask in round, email me at kdhenin@callutheran.edu. I will do my best to get back to you before your next tournament with anything that might help you, and I am happy to send you my flows if you think they will be helpful to you.

I debated for four years of college NPDA/NPTE style parli, which, if
you're not familiar with it, is sort of like HS circuit policy without
cards. I was generally a policy making debater, but in my final year I
ran the K quite a lot, so I'm comfortable with it.

I HAVE NOT COMPETED SINCE 2013. While I have been judging on and off, I am somewhat rusty. Just an FYI. The years have made me both modestly less competent (sorry) but also modestly kinder. While I can handle most speed in Parli, LD and Policy probably have to slow down a bit for me. I'll yell clear and will do my best, but please be aware of my limitations. 

Here's the tl;dr if you're reading this right before a round:

1. Speed, theory, k's, procedurals are totally fine.

2.  Especially important: slow down on tags so I have pen time, indicate clearly to me when you've switched from one
argument to another (numbering is great, but can be confusing because
many arguments have internal numbering, so "next" works well.)

3. Economics and politics probably need less explanation. Philosophy
(framework, especially) needs more.

4. I love a good theory debate, but I find that it's the most perishable skill in debate, so please please please be
clear, be organized, and tell me how theory arguments interact. The easiest way to win my ballot on questions of theory is to prove some theory argument is the internal link to all other theory arguments, for example.

5. I have some competence in debate and I'm reasonably intelligent, but, like most circuit judges, I am not as smart as you think I am and not nearly as smart as I think I am. Keep that in mind.

Here's the long form:

Speed/Communication:


1) If you are clear I will be able to flow you. You will find it very difficult in Parli or PuFo to spread me out, but Policy or LD might need to slow down a bit. Please allow for pen time. Make sure your tags are clear. It's the debater's job to communicate arguments clearly. I know that sucks---I've been on the receiving end of enough "judge told me to make the argument I actually did make" decisions for three debate careers, but it's the only way we can play the game.

2) I will yell clear for clarity, loud for loudness. I will yell these many times if need be, because I do really want to understand you, but
if you persist, I won't keep yelling all round.

3) Please ignore my nonverbals. During debate rounds, I'm very focused on being as fair as I can to you, so my facial control goes out the window. My happy face doesn't mean you're winning, and my sad face doesn't mean you're losing. My lack of flowing may mean I'm confused, or it may mean I've already written enough of the argument to satisfy me.

Theory:

 Please be clear where your answers to theory are (on the counterinterp, on
the violation, etc.) and what their function is. The easiest way to
win my ballot here is to weigh your various theory arguments against
each other, and explain to me why this means you win. (I've judged
rounds where the debater explained to me afterwards why a five second
theory argument should've won them the round. The debater was right,
but the explanation in round to communicate that argument was
insufficient. )

I accept whatever arguments are presented to me. If those arguments
are not made, here is how I default:

1) I have a high, but not impossible, threshold for RVIs...in Parli. In LD, I defer to community norms.

2) Theory comes before pre-fiat comes before post-fiat

3) I default to a framework of competing interpretations. 

What arguments you should run in front of me:

Kritiks:
I really, really, really like the K, because I think it is an
incredibly valuable way to confront our most basic assumptions about
society. But I have also not debated for quite some time and my comprehension may not where it used to be.

Keep this in mind. K's are fantastic and cool and wonderful. BUT DO NOT RUN THEM
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM. The K works well when you understand not
only what the argument says but also why the argument explains why you
win the round. Yelling "they use biopower" is not enough; you need to
give me reasons why their use of biopower means I should vote against
them. Talk about role of the ballot, tell me why your alt solves, and
tell me why I should vote for you.

Extensions:
1) Extensions. I am not okay with shadow extensions. It's fine to say
"extend the Domalewski card" (I live for the day someone says that, by
the way), but do not use the next speech to explain how that card
interacts with an argument your opponent made. I will not allow
"extend x" in one speech to become magically explained in a later speech.

Speaks:
My range is from 27-30. 28 is average, 27 is below average, 26 and
below is probably racist. 28.5 is above average, 29 is "you will
probably clear", and 29.5-29.8 is "you are likely to win this
tournament." Anything above and I will be actively recruiting you to
join my future Presidential campaign, both because I am in awe of your
talents and terrified that if you do not join me you will destroy me.

I reward, in this order:
1. Good strategic choices. Do you have a crafty, strategic case? Do
you collapse to the right places throughout the round? Do you use your
opponent's mistakes against him/her? Do you see the outs your opponent
has, and shut them down?
2. Clarity. To quote my good friend Om Alladi, "structure is KEY. I
really like structured arguments. this does not mean subpoints etc.
but labelling of arguments. if you tag every argument with the
appropriate function, ie '1) not true- 2) alt causality 3) solvency
takeout' i will appreciate it immensely."
3. Innovation/cleverness. Running a weird interpretation or unique
contentions will earn you points. I like creativity.
4. These things will TANK your speaker points: rudeness, being mean to
novices, spreading out people who ask you to slow down, intentionally
being unclear, racist/sexist/homophobic language. Read the room: being
aggressive and dominant is fine against a debater that is equal to
you in skill, but comes off as bullying to someone who is less
experienced.

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

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.

Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience

I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".

I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents.

By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts?

Firoz Gill

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

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

Flowing:
- If I don't understand an argument the first time I hear it, I won't flow it / vote for it

- Voter issues are crucial. Weighing arguments is super important to me. Otherwise, I may have to weigh things myself.

Presentation:
- Most debaters think they can spread, but very few can. Unless you are absolutely certain in your ability to remain crystal clear at high speeds, don’t go over 300 words per minute. Every time I yell “clear!” your speaker points suffer.
- Slow down A LOT on argument taglines, author names, theory interpretations, case theses, K alternatives, plantexts, and CP texts. For the latter three, you should have copies of the text ready for your opponent and the judge.
- I prefer cards to have author qualifications and year read aloud.
- Eye contact doesn't matter, but voice modulation does.
- If you said everything you needed to say, don't ramble to fill up speech time, just sit down.
- Example of a bad NC roadmap: "First, I'll read my NC in which I argue that justice doesn't exist, then an off-case which will be a topicality on "ought", and finally I'll prove why the affirmative case is wrong."
The function of a roadmap is to help me put the pages of my flow in order; any information that doesn't do that is superfluous. An off-case is anything that's not on the affirmative case. NC stands for "negative constructive," not "negative case."
Example of a good NC roadmap: "2 off, AC."
- I will typically give an oral RFD.

Argumentation preferences:
- All arguments should have warrants. I will not vote on blips.
- An empirical warrant can appeal to common knowledge, but cards trump common knowledge.
- An analytical warrant does not require a card. A quote from a philosopher may contain a warrant, but simply the fact that some philosopher agrees with you does not constitute a warrant – that’s the “appeal to authority” fallacy. I hold up analytical warrants made by carded philosophers to the same level of scrutiny as analytical warrants made by debaters.
- I like positional cases.
- Weird stuff is great if you can pull it off.
- Critical/discourse cases are fine, but slow down on confusing parts. Specific alternatives with solid solvency are a plus. I tend to buy intuitive answers to Ks.
- Theory is fine if they're actually abusive, but don't overuse it. I tend to buy "reasonable limits" answers to it. I'll vote on RVIs (high threshold). I think theory is a type of a discourse argument (Fairness K or Education K), with violation as the link, standards as the impact, interpretation as the alternative, and voters as the framework. The implication is that theory can be weighed against other discourse arguments. Also, most theory debates are boring (Prefer not to have theory debate).

- The value/criterion model is often abused to exclude relevant argumentation. I think that debate rounds which are more practical are better off with a generic standard without a criterion (as a parli debater, I am used to net benefits) and with impacts weighed out primarily on the contention level; the more philosophical debates should just have the philosophical framework as the standard. I will use net benefits unless you give me good reasons to prefer another standard.
- I won't vote any type of argument down right away, so if you feel confident you can win it, run it, and have fun.

I love good Neg. strategy and think multiple positions (T, CP, K) is a great way to strategize. Also, I love great CPs (especially PICs). I think they're pretty real world and test the Aff plan fully. I am fine with conditional stuff as well. As Aff. make sure you ask if things are conditional or not.

If possible try not to exlclude the other team by spreading. Also, if you do spread through a CP, T, or K it would be helpful for you to give the other team a copy in order for them to better follow along.

I think the Aff. Should limit the resolution in a way that’s beneficial to them. (I’m fine with some Extra T).

I am looking for solid fundamentals with strong arguments from both sides. Please use logical arguments and back those with evidence . Please tagline your arguments or your rebuttals so that I can keep track of the flow .

Please don't spread. You have enough time to make a solid argument than to just jam in too many words.

Don't run Ks.

He/him/his

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

On general argumentation:

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

Analyzed evidence > evidence > reasoning > claims.

On delivery:

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

If you exclude others, they can argue that you should lose for it.

I reserve the right to drop you if you're an asshole.

On Theory:

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

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

On Kritiks:

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

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

For carded debate:

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

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

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?

• This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.

• As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.

• I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.

• I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.

• I default to fiat being durable.

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.

• I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

• I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).

• What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

• I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.

• All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
  
  
• I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
  
  
• I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

Hi, I'm Julie Guilfoy (she/her), I have been working with the Bishop O'Dowd debate team for the past 4 years as a coach and judge.

Give content warnings before the speeches start please. I'll disclose and do a verbal RFD and feedback if time and tournament rules permit. I welcome fast speaking and evaluate on what is on the flow and evaluate on the strongest case. I appreciate debaters that sign post their case well and go beyond citing warrants; that is, tying their claims and evidence to unified story. Pet peeve of mine is debaters that try to win on overzealous POO's. Be aggressive, not abusive. I welcome debaters running a critical theory based argument as long as they are explained well and don't exclude any debaters from the round. Make sure to engage in the standards, debates and talk about fairness and education.

I am a lay judge who has judged tournaments for almost 5 years.

Kritiks: Please don't run them.

Speed: Don't spread.

Theory: Don't run friv t. Topicality is okay if you explain it well.

Speaks: Speak with clarity, passion, and respect. Structure is very important so make sure to sign post.

POI's: It looks better if you take POI's and answer them well. Try to take and ask at least a few per speech.

POO's: Call them out, but make sure you clearly explain what is new and why it matters. When responding, clearly show me where you said it.

Tag Teaming: Play to your strengths. If you understand something and your partner doesn't or you just want to help them, by all means tag team. Just make sure it's in the spirit of teamwork, not because you don't trust your partner.

Weighing: I value strong last speeches and debaters who can clearly write my ballot for me. Always link back to the criterion.

Be respectful and have fun. Debate is a competition, but make sure you don't take yourself too seriously. Mistakes are okay!

Good luck!

I'm a parent (lay) judge with several years of experience at tournaments.

Not a fan of spreading, especially if you can't be understood. Prefer teams to win on the quality of the arguments versus throwing procedure and interruptions at your opponents. That means please limit points of order. Explain any jargon you use (i.e. uniqueness, link).

I do my best to follow and track the flow, and my job is easier if you clearly signpost and organize your speeches.

From the origin of my debate career, I have been a parent judge. Therefore, I really like it when you stand up straight, look me in the eye, and pay attention to the other speakers and your partner. If you think those things don't matter, you may be surprised in the future. I absolutely believe that debate, and especially Parliamentary Debate, is a fantastic endeavor. I will honor that and I will expect you to as well.

My experience spans about 13 years as I squired my two youths to as many tournaments as we all could attend and judged many rounds. Those two are coaches now and I have remained active because I believe in what the community is doing. So show me what you, and they, have gotten from this activity, such as:

· Critical thinking about the arguments you propose from great use of prep time

· The ability to cogently rebut your opponents case

· Eloquent communication of those arguments

· Tactical elements of argumentation

Speed: It’s fine if you can continue to enunciate appropriately so your opponents and I can hear your arguments. If a case is made but we don't hear it, then it doesn’t exist. If this judge doesn’t hear it it's a sure bet the case does not exist.

Pet peeve: Most plans cost money. It will be beneficial if you have a relatively good idea of how much is needed and where you intend to get it.

Tactics: K’s, Perms and Theory arguments are clever when done well and lose when done badly. Plan Inclusive Counterplans almost always work against you. If an opponent makes an argument that is unfair, you still have to call them out for it. Otherwise, like unchallenged contentions, it will flow through.

There has been quite a bit of change in the debate community and improvement in tournament activity. You should be proud of your participation. Everyone is in the room because they respect the activity of debate. We can demonstrate that and show our respect for each other. I will listen intently and try to deliver a lucid decision. Sometimes RFD’s delivered quickly can sound abrupt. Please don’t be offended. You are great competitors and often significant academic achievers. Getting better requires understanding why votes go against you, not how wonderful you are. I want to walk away better for hearing your arguments. Good luck and thanks for the opportunity.

Background

I debated parli for four years in high school for both Livermore High School and Mountain View/Los Altos. For two of these years I was active on the NorCal high school circuit. I am continuing debate with Santa Clara University. I am a Computer Science and Engineering student so please don't lie about tech.

Approach to judging

I am not a tabula rasa judge, but I am not going to do work for you or throw out arguments I do not like. Simply I am more likely to buy certain arguments and less likely to buy others.

I come to debate seeing some of the split in the community as a competitor. I believe that debate is both a game and an educational activity. Debate does not occur in a vacuum, and as public speakers or future policy makers, debaters have a responsibility to not use rhetoric upholding racist, sexist, etc ideologies. I will average speaker points based on the tournament average, but will save 30s for exceptional speeches.

Argument preferences

Counterplans: Counterplans are great, but the neg should explain how it competes coming out of the 1NC. Permutations are legitimate, but they are a test of the advocacy, if the aff advocates for the perm, I view that as severance. Kicking CPs is fine as are multiple CPs or advocacies, although I am open to the theory arguments against them as well.

Evaluation order/methods: Framework and arguments may change my evaluation order, but this is the default.. In a tie, I vote neg unless the neg has a CP or other advocacy flowed through at the end of the round, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, and default to net benefits for both..

Impacts: Have impacts and terminalize them. Don’t worry about getting to nuke war unless you have a good linkstory. Dehumanization is important, and discussion of systemic impacts is encouraged. I also like the environment and technology, so impacts based around that may earn you higher speaker points.

Kritiks: I am happy to listen to most kritiks, aff or neg. Kritiks requiring spreading your opponents out of the round are difficult for me to accept and I am more likely to vote on speed theory than many judges in the circuit. If your opponents call slow or clear, slow and/or clear, DO NOT just ignore it. If you are going run a K, make sure you clearly explain how it functions and the literature. I am not conversant at a high level in most literature, and even if I am, it will make the round clearer and more educational for everyone involved. Signpost your K and keep it clear and organized. Also be prepared to give your opponents a copy of the alt text if they ask. I tend to evaluate prefiat arguments first on framework, but I am willing to weigh discursive implications of the postfiat arguments/case against them. I do expect that those facing a K will put in good effort to engage with the K, even if they are looking for me to vote other places on the flow, so argue more than just framework or theory (unless you’re being spread out, in which case that is more acceptable). I am also more willing to weigh generic arguments against the K, but make sure to explain how they interact with this K in particular.

Also stealing something from Julie Herman in how I deal with K alts to encourage more variety and better Ks:

I am trying something new here. I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does.

Theory/Topicality: If you want me to vote for theory, you need to make sure to give it impacts/voters. If you want it to do something else in the round, explain how it should function in the round. I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but please don’t use theory just to beat a less technically skilled debater. Theory has a place both as a strategy and to maintain fairness, but don’t overuse it. I err towards voting to maintain fairness and education, and default to competing interpretations on theory. I will vote on RVIs but not commonly, so make sure you have good reasons for it (ie critical turns or clear times skew).

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I can follow any formatting, but I prefer advantage/disadvantage for policy rounds. I can follow best if you signpost and have a clear structure. Impact calculus and an overview in the final round make my job the easiest.

Tag-teaming: I am fine with tag-teaming, though I will only flow what the current speaker says. If it takes over, it may impact speaker points.

Questions: Points of information are good. Use them strategically to either get the opponents onto another topic or clarify the case or debate. Points of Order stop time, with the side calling the point of order gettting to make their case, then the side defending getting to respond. There shouldn’t be back and forth in this time. I will make a ruling and then time will start again.

Respectfulness: Be respectful! Rhetoric is important and I am very open to voting on issues about speech in round if one side is hostile/offensive towards an oppressed group. I will buy rhetoric turns and rhetoric can undermine your case. I will penalize speaker points for hostile or offensive speech acts regardless of your opponent's’ responses.

Speed: I can follow moderate speeds, but may penalize speaker points if your speed interferes with comprehension. Be respectful of your opponent. If they have a high level of difficulty following your speed and make an impacted argument about it in round, I am open to voting on it. You can decrease the chance of me doing this by slowing/clearing if they yell SLOW or CLEAR. If you repeatedly ignore these requests, I will punish your speaker points. I will call slow or clear if I cannot understand you, but will do this a maximum of 3 times, after that I will just put my pen down and stop flowing if you’re going too fast.

Other: I expect you to provide a written copy of a plan/CP/K thesis/K alt/Interpretation to the opponent if asked, you may want to write it out ahead of time. Any team should be able to call “text” during your speech and you should get them a copy by their speech, but preferably asap. Please read these parts or your speech twice and slow down a little if you are going at any sort of speed.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round.

I’m a parent and volunteer judge, have been judging for just over 6 years. Have judged some speech events but mostly Parliamentary Debate, and some Congress events. I like logical, reasoned and well developed arguments. Dislike aggressive speech style, frequently raised POIs, tag teaming. POIs raised should be concise and well articulated. Granting at least one POI is encouraged. Like quality over quantity with respect to arguments. I mostly use flow to decide the outcome. Given the remote format imposed by Covid-19, would appreciate it if participants look at the camera other than when they are reading from / writing notes.

Hello! My name is Alexander and I've been in the debate world for about 10 years. I view myself as a note-taker and I will do my best to evaluate the arguments on the flow. Here are some of my personal likes and dislikes as a judge. I like lots of warrants, clear explanations of arguments, and impact comparison. I dislike frivolous theory arguments, speed for the sake of speed, and claims without warrants. As a debater I competed nearly 100% of the time using kritikal arguments, so feel free to do your thing, as long as you explain why you deserve the ballot and how the other team can engage in your argument.

I have four years of judging experience at local and online tournaments. I will consider the following extensively:

Significance of value & value criteria and how these goals were met with your framework and argumentation.

How well a debater can prove the validity or invalidity of the resolution.

Communicate with clarity. If I do not understand an argument, I cannot consider it in my decision. I am fine with fast conversational pacing, but spreading is not okay.

Novel arguments introduced in the rebuttal will be disregarded.

Evaluation is based on debaters arguments and NOT personal bias.

Words need to be enunciated and clearly argue your points.   

Background:

My name is Jessica Jung. I won NPDA in 2018-2019 with my partner, Lila Lavender as a hybrid team (the first all transwomen national champion team yay!!) I also did NPDA Parli for four years in college for UC Berkeley where I competed on and off. I was mostly a kritikal debater personally but I dabbled in case and theory every so often. I generally believe that debate is a game and should be treated like one. This means that I am content agnostic (for the most part and with a few exceptions such as instances of violence in the round) and that I see debate from a more technical standpoint. Technical debate was what I learned at Cal and is what I am most familiar with and thus, that tends to affect my judging. That being said, one of my goals in debate when I competed was to turn debate into a spectacle (whether that was good or not has yet to be seen) but as such, I am very open to new arguments, new types of debate and pushing the envelope for what NPDA parli is or could be. That being said, anything that is new takes some getting used to so don't be surprised if I find these cool new novel arguments difficult to evaluate.

A few personal requests:

1. Please read trigger warnings or content warnings before discussing any topics related to sexual violence. Please do so before the round and not at the top of the PMC so that if I or anyone else in the room needs to take a second, or abstain from the debate, there is a moment to exercise some amount of personal privilege.

2. Do not misgender your opponents, intentional or otherwise. I would generally recommend defaulting to "they" if you do not know someone's pronouns and to use "my opponents" in the round as I find using people's first names in the round to be kind of uncomfortable.

3. I would prefer you do not give me a "shout out" or refer to my personal history during your speech or during debates. Not sure exactly how to phrase it but I find it uncomfortable for debaters to refer to me via first name or reference my debate history in the round. Before or after is fine, we can make small talk etc but please just don't be weird about it during the round.

4. Please debate however makes you the most comfortable, I have zero preferences whether you sit or stand, what you wear etc as long as you're respectful of your opponents and your partner.

TL;DR fine with theory, K’s, case, explain your arguments with warrants and explicit implications, will default to tech evaluation on the flow, don’t be bad to your opponents

Evaluative Framework:

- I'm comfortable with case, theory, K's etc. I'm fairly content agnostic in this regard.

- I'm fairly comfortable with speed but if I call clear or slow, please heed these requests, otherwise I will just miss things on the flow because I can't write fast enough.

- I evaluate the debate based on the flow, which generally means I will vote in whatever way minimizes my intervention in the round. I think that some amount of judge intervention is inevitable but I will still aim to make decisions with the least amount of intervention possible.

- I stole this from Trevor Greenan but we got a similar debate education so this should be totally justifiable: I vote in this order:
1. conceded arguments
2. arguments with warrants and substantive analysis
3. arguments with in-round weighing/framing
4. arguments with implicit clash/framing
5. arguments I am more familiar with

- In round articulation of arguments is very important. Even if conceded arguments have certain potential implications for the round, unless those implications are made explicit or within the original reading of the argument, I am unwilling to grant you those implications as that feels interventionist. This generally means you should be more explicit than not. This applies to: concessions, extensions, impacts, weighing etc.

- I generally don't like voting on blippy arguments or underdeveloped arguments especially if these arguments are just claims with no warrants or impacts. I have a high threshold for these types of arguments and am also willing to grant late responses if the original argument or its explanation was unclear or massively underdeveloped.

- I do not grant shadow extensions, or at the very least, treat them as new arguments. This means that arguments not extended by the MG cannot be leveraged in the PMR, arguments not extended by the MO cannot be leveraged in the LOR etc. While grouped/blanket extensions are fine, for example if an entire advantage/DA is dropped or extending a section of the flow like all the impacts, but for the most part if you want anything specific from these extensions you should do them in the MG/MO. This also includes new cross applications from extended arguments onto other sheets/layers of the debate as these cross-apps should have been done by the MG/MO.

- I protect against new arguments but you should call Point of Orders just in case as I am not perfect and can/may miss things.

- I have a high threshold for voting on presumption and presumption is a portion of debate I may not be the most comfortable on. I'm still willing to evaluate the layer, just don't assume that I'm following your presumption collapse 100%.

- I don't mind conditionality. That being said, my preference is towards less wide, more tall/deep debates but whatever floats your boat.

Argument Specifics:

Theory:

- have a stable and clear interp text
- read theory arguments with explicit voters
- if not explicitly articulated, I will default to drop the argument
- I default to competing interpretations
- read brightlines for reasonability
- generally friv T is fine by me but I'll be honest and say I don't find friv theory debates to be all that interesting
- I might have a lower threshold for voting on RVI's than other judges on the circuit but I am still generally unwilling to pull the trigger on them unless they're substantively developed, even if its conceded (see the point about implications/explanations above)
- if standards are not articulated in substantively different ways or are not given different implications (like terminalizing out to fairness or education) then I am unwilling to auto-vote on a conceded standard if the other similar standards have answers to them or if the other team has some amount of mitigation.

Ks:

- sequencing arguments such as prior questions or root cause claims need to be warranted and substantively explained as well as interacted with the other portions of the debate
- clear links please, not links of omission, try and make them specific to the 1ac
- I evaluate links via strength of link. comparative work on the links done by the debaters would make me really happy! be sure to weigh relinks and links against each other
- rejecting the resolution in front of me is fine as long as you defend and justify your choice
- I believe that I can follow along with most K arguments you read in front of me but don't assume I'm intimately familiar with the literature
- do not assume that because I did mostly kritikal debate in college that I am exclusively a K hack, if anything I am likely to expect a lot from K debates and may have higher evaluative thresholds for K's because that's what I am most familiar with. that being said, I love kritiks so feel free to run them in front of me.
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the alt are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- I'll evaluate/vote on severance permutations if there is substantive explanation and if there's no argument why severance is bad/unfair.

Case/CPs

- not sure if there's really such a thing as terminal defense but am still willing to buy these arguments
- prefer less generic case arguments than not (who doesn't really) but am still fine with your generic advantages and DAs.
- more specific and warranted the better
- CPs need to stable texts
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the CP are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- PICs/cheater CP's are fine with me but so is PICs bad and CP theory

Prepping outside of prep time and being disorganized is not okay.

Basic Overview:

I believe it's your burden to tell me how and WHY (very important part) I should vote. If you give me a reason to vote on an RVI, and it goes dropped (I have a very low threshold for beating an RVI), and you go for that warranted RVI in your last speech... I will vote for it, regardless of how icky it feels. If neither team does the work to tell me how and why I vote, and I have to do a lot of work for you, don't be mad if that vote doesn't swing your way.

On LD rules:

For the sake of consistency, you have to tell me if something is in the rules if you want me to vote on it. So if you're going for "that type of counterplan isn't allowed in LD," then you obviously (and inherently) tell me that it's in the rules. The same thing goes for T... I don't NEED other voters, but you do have to tell me it's the rules. Also, I guess you can tell me the rules are bad, but you have to warrant it well.

Speed is also addressed in the rules, but I think that "conversational rate" is an arbitrary term. I'm fine with speed but I prefer that you annunciate. If your speed costs you your clarity, then slow down.

On Theory:

Absent you telling me, I defer to competing interps and potential abuse. That's just how I see debate, and is how I find myself evaluating rounds where no one tells me how to vote but the round clearly comes down to theory.

On Stock Issues:

It's technically in the rules that you have to have these stock issues, so if you're going for "no inherency" or "no propensity to solve" all you really have to do is cite the rules. Refer to my take on the rules.

On the K:

I'm comfortable with critical arguments. I often find that the Alt isn't explained well, and it's a pretty important part of the K because absent the Alt, your K is a nonunique DA. I still think you can claim K turns case absent the Alt, but of course that can be refuted back and forth so it's better to try to win your alt.

On 1AR/1NR/ Theory:

I never see it debated well because of time constraints in LD but sure, I'm open to it. If you're going for it in the 2AR, I imagine you'd really have to go for it.

I used to debate parliamentary and non-circuit LD in high school. I will flow. Theory/kritiks are okay. If you're running kritiks, they need to have a better alternative than "reject the affirmative". I prefer no speed, unless you have exceptionally good articulation.

I have only judged Parli before.

I like to do flowing. Helps me if you can go slow and bullet your construction and rebuttals. Follow rules. Civil conversation. No direct personal attacks. Raise your hand on POIs and POOs, and wait for the speaker can acknowledge. Be clear on the references. 

Have fun.

I believe in good old fashioned case debate, but if you don't want to do that that's okay as well, but make sure that you are clear. I like listening to link chains with lots of warrants and analysis. If you run topicality then please no more than 2 minutes on it. If you run a kritik prepare to lose because I probably won't get it. Please be nice, respectful to other participant and make sure you have fun because that's whats important. Learn from each other more than competing with each other.

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

I am a parent/volunteer and I judge at about 10 rounds of Parli debate (Novice and Open levels) each year since 2015.

My preferences -

normal speed

logical and coherent

specific and persuasive

clear and straight'orward

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

Please go slow and clearly call out your contentions. I expect clear arguments with supporting factors. Reinforced contentions with additional supporting factors in each speech to further provide clarity. No personal attacks and no spreading please.

History/Background: Current competitor for UC Berkeley, 2 years overall Parli experience. I have pretty extensive experience judging LD, Pofo, IPDA, etc so I can hang with any format, but since my background is primarily Parli, that's what this paradigm is focused on. If I'm judging you in a different event, please don't hesitate to ask for my opinions on anything in regards to how you debate.

Paradigm Proper: Anybody who says that they're tabula rasa in their paradigm is lying, but I will try to remain as close to a blank slate as possible while watching you debate. I'm adaptable to most any type of argument, so don't hold back. Below is a set of preferences through which I generally evaluate debate, but if you make arguments in the round that are sufficiently convincing, I am more than happy to listen and change my stance. Any other questions can and should be directed to me at the start of the round. Here goes:

Case debate: I love a good case debate, the more detailed the better. Clear stories and strong links with terminalized impacts will make my day. Impact weighing is godsend in a messy round and the more clash the better. Narrow collapses and straightforward voters will make my life so much easier and me so much happier to vote for you. Counterplans are cool and I'll vote on any types (Including Delay, PICs, and any other types) but I'll also vote on CP theory if your CP is abusive.

Theory: I'm somewhat of a theory hack so please don't hand-wave it away in front of me. Theory is super dope and I'm always down to vote on it if someone makes it a voting issue. Interps, Counter-interps, standards, and counter-standards are critical so please use them to the best of your ability! Like any other form of debate, a messy theory debate makes me a sad judge. I don't like RVIs and you'll be fighting an uphill battle to get me to vote on one. I default to competing interpretations which IN MY MIND is weighing the interp vs the counter-interp by standards vs counter-standards. If you think it's something different, tell me in your speech.

Kritikal Debate: Ks are cool, but I'm of the opinion that Ks might be cheating and they certainly are run too much on my circuit. Good K debate is an art but bad K debate is a dumpster fire. I haven't read the litbase and you probably haven't either. Make it understandable to me and you'll have a much easier time getting my ballot. I don't care how "rhizomatic" you think you are, if you're opponets are confused, I probably am too. I will vote for your Foucault-Deleuze-biopower-warmachine-psot-structuralist mumbo jumbo if it's horribly mishandled by your opponents, but I won't be happy about it if I can't understand it by the end of the round. I probably sound very anti-K, but really I'm totally down for them, just try to make them comprehensible. Same thing applies to Aff Ks, but they're probably even more cheater-y than normal Ks so I'm cool with em but framwork T is totally legit and I will vote on it.

Other general things:

Conditionality: Condo is dope but I'll vote on Condo Bad without too much pressure if it's well articulated! I try to be tab when evaluating the position, so know your Condo Good/Bad and I'll go either way!

Speed: I can keep up, but if you want hyper-specific arguments flowed exactly, I'd recommend slowing down a bit. Also, don't be a jerk, if your opponents call slow, slow down. Debate isn't fun if someone can't engage because you spread them out.

Speaker points: Speaker points are really arbitrary but I assign based on who I thought the best debater in the round, so a basic round will look like 1st Speaker gets between 30-28 points, next gets .1 lower, et cetera. Unless you do something really nasty or messed up in round, you shouldn't expect to get any less than 27 speaker points.

Partner Communication: Communicate as much as you want/need to. Don't be overly loud during your opponent's speeches and I'll only flow the designated speaker's args. I might lower speaker points if one partner is completely parroting the other, but I have a pretty high threshold for that.

(I think the idea that a TEAM BASED ACTIVITY should limit partner communication is absurd but far too prevalent on the pre-Colleigate level and I will happily debate anyone on this topic.)

Once again, if you have any questions about this, let me know before the round and I will be glad to help clarify anything you need me to!

Good luck and have fun!

Judging Background: I competed at both the community college debate level and the 4-year university level and am a current competitor for UC Berkeley. I have 2 years of Parli experience as well as extensive high school judging experience in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Policy. My paradigm will mainly be related to parli, but I have many thoughts on other events, so I’d be happy to discuss them prior to the round. I will always make time for competitor questions.

The TL;DR of my paradigm is that I will vote for just about anything, but I like case a lot, theory a little less, and Ks at the bottom of my debate arg hierarchy. I try to be tabula rasa so I will nevertheless do my best to intervene as little as possible, but I recommend the following notes as things to keep in mind when you debate in front of me!

Case debate: Smart (topical) approaches to rounds are always appreciated! Make your case clear and signpost properly or else you will lose me on the flow. Make your links strong and have well-developed impact stories, and make sure to collapse properly and weigh your arguments well. I like ads, disads, and counterplans, so feel free to run it all! I will vote for an abusive counterplan, but I will also vote on well-articulated CP theory (PICs bad, Delay bad).

Theory: I also enjoy theory and am def willing to vote on most theory shells. Make sure you’ve got your interps, standards, counter-interps, and counter-standards or it’s going to be a difficult time and I will be sad. If debaters don’t articulate a framework to evaluate the theory through, I will default to competing interpretations. To me, this is literally weighing the interp vs the counter-interp by using the standards and counter-standards as the uniqueness. I don’t like RVIs because I think theory is an important check so if you’re going for one, you should have a good reason.

Kritiques: I’m down for the K but it’s not my favorite thing to judge. I will definitely vote for them if you win the flow, but please make sure you make all components of it clear! If the argument isn’t made clear, I will be hesitant to vote on it. This is a particular problem with post-structuralist arguments that rely on a lot of lit that I most certainly have not read, so I can’t backfill anything for you and will avoid doing so no matter what you read. If your opponents are lost, chances are that I am as well. Make your links rock-solid and your alt solvency crystal-clear and that will be your route to the ballot.

K Affs: Most of the above applies here, but since I believe that debate has inherent value in at least discussing the topic in a substantial way so if you run one, please PLEASE contextualize it to the resolution and explain why you couldn’t defend a topical policy action. Framework-T is a great out for any negative strat against an aff-k.

Here are some other general thoughts I have on parli:

Conditionality: I believe that Condo is not a very good thing, and while I will not vote you down for being condo, I may be predisposed to lean towards a decent Condo Bad shell.

Speed: I can largely keep up, but don’t abuse your ability to spread! Make sure that the round is inclusive to everyone involved or debate is no fun. If you are incomprehensible, I will not hesitate to call “clear” or “slow” and I expect you to afford your opponents that same respect. If I miss something on the flow, it’s probably your fault.

Partner Communication: Since Parli is a team game, I expect communication to happen and I encourage it, as long as you are respectful while your opponents are speaking! I will also only flow what the current speaker says, so be aware of that when feeding arguments.

Speaker Points: I’m a point fairy! The top speaker will get 30, followed by 29.5, 29, 28.5. If I happen to give out something lower, I should have a justification and some constructive criticism on my ballot for you.

IVI's and RVI's: I have a high threshold for both IVI's and RVI's. If they are unresponded to, however, I will be forced to evaluate them.

P.S. I will be a very happy judge if you have clever taglines on your DA’s and AD’s :’)

I used to be a parliamentary debater and went to nationals in public forum. I am well versed in all forms of debate and don't have any particular grievances that anyone should worry about except for the fact that I don't like spreading. You can speak fast but if you start to spread then I wont write anything down and you'll subsequently lose the round. Stick to good ol fashioned debate and you'll probably be fine. Please ask me any specific questions you have before the round and I will be happy to answer or clarify anything.

About myself and my judging style.

• Judged in speech and debate events for two years.

• Value content over presentation style.

• Value Quality over Quantity. If I don’t understand the content, I can not give you credit for it. Please slow down if you are looking for better scores.

• Expect teams to respect the time limit, play nice and be polite and respectful.

I have a few years of judging debate, mostly congress however. I am most familiar with Congress and Parlimentary debate, and have no experience in CX,PF, or LD. I am unfamiliar with theory arguments, kritiks, and other non-traditional debating, so either explain it extremely well or don’t run them at all. I do not understanding spreading so I will lower your speaker points if it is unclear to me. I consider myself as a half-flow judge and more lay than flow. I will try to get down your arguments and taglines but I can’t always write down everything you say such as all evidence and impacts/warrants. Make sure to explain clearly the warrant link chains and the impacts. I enjoy someone that speaks well and clearly which helps me try to make the best descision.

Lay parent; but former high school debater and current professional lobbyist. If I had a general approach, it would be tech over truth. It's not about my ideology . . . And please don't try to tailor your approach to what you assume my background and leanings are. (I didn't always drive a minivan). It's about your ability to make an argument with links, analysis and evidence. Please don't read me a bunch of cards and expect me to work out the arguments for you. I am not a believer in judge intervention. I'm high on organization, so give me the line by line. It also probably benefits you to slow down for high theory argumentation -- I don't live and breathe it like you do. No major preferences on argument or framework (i.e., don't steer away from K's or speed because I'm someone's mom . . . I actually enjoy a good K). Having a said all of that, I'm not a fan of RVI's, which I find to be counter-logical. If you go that route, it will cost you more time in analysis and persuasive argumentation than you were striving to save. On disads and CP's: make some effort to get beyond a generic disad shell or boilerplate CP and tailor your arguments and analysis to the specific aff presented. On K's: I have and will vote on these. I enjoy a good K, but -- again -- I don't live and breathe this. I am relatively unfamiliar with the literature base, so be sure to articulate your arguments well and do not assume I know any of the terms you are using. Identity politics arguments are a much more familiar cell (and a more natural orientation) for me than postmodernism. I don't preclude these arguments, but work overtime to make sure you have a deeper more thorough explanation and analysis if you choose to run them in front of me. Niemela@npalobby.com

I've been a lay judge for 5 years, so by now understand many concepts of flow and take many notes, but I don't keep track of every argument and counterargument nearly as closely and skillfully as what you'd consider a true flow judge. Nonetheless, I don't mind if you speak quickly.

I appreciate aggressive argument but don't appreciate disrespect of the other team, such as snickering at or mocking them under your breath while they are speaking.

· I am apt at collecting my data and at analyzing it (I am trained to do that).

· I start with the measure of neutrality. My personal views and opinions do not influence my judging session.

· I look for a structure as specified by the particular debating category. I flow and track the arguments/contentions, take note of points dropped, check analysis on the reasonability of arguments, evidence and their sources mentioned.

· I have a great appetite for current affairs, technology, Science, Socioeconomic and Political happenings around the world. Most important of all, I enjoy debates.

· Although I place the weighing of arguments and Impact Calculus as the main reason for my decision, I prefer that debaters move at a moderate and comprehendible pace. There is nothing worse than a good argument that I can’t understand because of speed.

I'm a parent judge.  I expect clear logical arguments presented in a precise, courteous manner.  I do not appreciate the spreading, as it takes away from the actual debating.  Be passionate in your presentation, but do not let your emotions substitute the arguments, evidence and logic.  For the same reason, please, limit the case kritik.  The tournament is a place to debate the resolution, not your personal views and affinities.

My name is Riddhi Patel and I judge Parliamentary debates.

Judging Criteria:

I judge the round based on what is presented in the round ONLY (with the exception of basic knowledge). So, if you want me to consider and/or vote on a position, you should explain it. I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, something tangible so I can make an informed decision. One of my main goals as a judge is to allow teams to run the arguments they feel are most compelling in front of me. What matters to me is what the debaters bring and who argues their positions most persuasively.

Speaker Points:

Things to help your speaker points: strategy, intelligence, and wit. Adjustments will occur when debaters are inappropriate in round. Please be civil! I know that debates can become intense, but your speaker points will also be a reflection of your ability to treat your opponents with respect. I award the best speaker in the round (winner or loser) with the highest points. The best speaker is someone who demonstrates a strong understanding of the components within the round, how those components interact, and can express themselves in a clear and confident manner.

General:

1. I am looking for clear, direct, strong arguments with supporting evidence.

2. Don't overuse buzzwords

3. I am open to all kinds of arguments and frameworks

4. You can ask me questions before the start or at the end of the debate...but please remember, its not the end of the world if you lose a ballot.

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!!

TL;DR: Do whatever you would do with any other lay judge

No theory; no kritiks; please speak slowly; have clear warrants and relevant examples

Please signpost

Tagteaming allowed, but please repeat clearly what your partner says

I am the head speech and debate coach for my school. I keep a rigorous flow, but I'd still consider myself a traditional judge. Speed for its own sake is something I disdain, but I can follow it somewhat. I would only vote for theory on topicality grounds or for actual abuse. Theory breaks debate, so you will need to convince me that the debate is impossible because of a real violation. Just because your opponent drops or mishandles your thin T shell does not mean a concession has occurred: tread carefully. I suppose I'd vote for a K but you will need to explain it very well. Your opponent dropping a poorly linked K is not an auto-victory.

In LD the Negative must refute the Affirmative case in the first speech. An unaddressed argument in this first speech is a drop/concession. I would allow Neg to cross-apply arguments from the NC in later speeches if they naturally clash with the aff case.

P.S. I have decided that most circuit-style debate is pretty embarrassing from a performance standpoint. I think it gives competitive debate a silly aspect that undermines its credibility and therefore undermines the value of the activity. I would probably say linking into this argument would get my ballot most of the time so long as one side is not also engaging in silly debate stuff. If both sides are super silly in performance and/or argumentation. I will decide based on the most outrageous dropped argument.

Hey I'm Ming. I'm a freshman debater for UC Santa Barbara and former debater for Campolindo High. If you care about my high school cred look me up here. On the college NPDA/NPTE circuit I've broken fairly far at all the tournaments I've attended and am fresh back from nationals to judge TOC, so clearly I'm sort of a debate junkie. Paradigm wise, TL;DR: I view debate as a game where debaters can read anything and I will evaluate arguments purely on the flow and try my best to minimize intervention. That means feel free to read your Kritikal Affs, multiple conditional advocacies, truth-testing positions, straight case, etc. as long as you win the justification. I understand prep is limited and you may not always have time to sift through a paradigm, so if you have any questions before the round, feel free to ask.

Speaker Points:

Unfortunately I am not a points fairy so if you're after that shiny, faux-gold speaker award I'm not the judge for you (Good Anakin, good. Strike him. Strike him now.). I generally give points between 26-29, where 27 is average and 29 is exceptional. I assign speaker points purely based off the technical debating ability demonstrated in round. Pathos is something that I value very little except in the context of performative arguments.

Theory:

Absent comparison this is broadly speaking the first level I look towards in evaluation. If the team defending against theory is lacking a counter interpretation and has lost the competing interpretations vs reasonability debate, then it is a near auto-lose for them. If a theory position lacks "drop the team" in the original shell I am inclined to buy "drop the debater" arguments as sufficient reason to not evaluate theory. On the question of potential vs articulated abuse, I am happy to vote on reasons why interpretations setting a potentially bad norm for debate is sufficient to pull the trigger. The implication for this is that "trivial" T does not necessarily have a higher threshold for evaluation and is an argument I am comfortable voting on if it's won. MG theory is also a perfectly fine strategy in front of me, although I'm very slightly more favorable to infinite regression arguments on metatheory debates. RVIs are fine as well, but I default to not evaluating a shell if it is won, not voting the team reading it down for losing it. I am also very open to uniqueness take out on debate collapse voters.

The Framework debate is my favorite and the kind of argumentation I am most comfortable evaluating. In my experience the most convincing framework standards are TVA, Switch-Side, and Truisms, but that doesn't mean simply uttering the words will win you the round. The most interesting points of clash in such debates are on the relevance of procedural fairness in the round and the role of the negative in debate. Another question to consider is whether only this round is relevant or whether each round is a deliberation of what the model of debate should be. One thing for 2ACs is that there is often a massive block of prepped defense and mitigation ya'll love to dump, which is perfectly fine, but I find cross-apps of case more convincing.

Kritik:

I'm fine with any kind of kritikal debate. Some of the most exciting rounds to watch are K on K debates with lots of thesis level clash e.g. Literally Anything vs Cap 🤔. I have a broad understanding of most post-modern and post-structuralist literature, including DnG, Lacan, Foucault/Agamben, Heidegger, Derrida, Baudrillard. However I am only human so please don't spread through densely cut cards from the Anti-Oedipus at warp speed and slow down a bit on thesis level claims. As a competitor I also read a lot of Asian-American sociological literature, and am familiar with such arguments as Model Minority, Conscientization, Asian Rage, etc. I also have a fairly comprehensive (although in no way definite) understanding of Wilderson. However my favorite philosophy of all has to be Buddhism, be it Mahayana, Theravada, Huayan, Sogen, Zen, Chan, etc. Daoism is also fascinating to me and is an area I am well-versed in.

If you're reading a K in front of me just make sure it has FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts, Alt, Alt Solvency. There's no flex time at TOC so I'll grant some leniency in terms of passing sheets for FW interps and Alt texts. Obviously Aff/Topic-Specific links are preferred but not necessary. FW should generally have a role of the critic/judge/ballot/debate argument with reasons to prefer. PIK alts are acceptable strategies, and I'm fine with the hidden reveal in the MO that the "Alt was a PIK all along!"

Case:

Nothing wrong with a good Politics DA. I wasn't the most prolific debater on case, usually reading DAs as a throwaway to something else, but I still expect ADs/DAs to have terminalized impacts and clear link stories. One thing debaters in HS tend to do is A. Not read impact framing B. Only compare the magnitude of the impacts. Weighing strength of link is something that will make my decision a lot easier. I believe terminal defense exists. If both teams are winning terminal defense then presumption flows negative. If the negative reads a non-PIC advocacy and both teams have terminal defense then presumption flows affirmative. Additionally, the uniqueness debate is one frustratingly undercovered with few teams comparing the quality of their evidence. As for types of arguments, I am fine with any kind of counterplan or case position.

Truth-Testing:

I understand truth-testing isn't the norm in Parli (and it hasn't been the norm for circuit LD/CX for a long time) but that shouldn't discourage you from reading the argument. I am perfectly fine abandoning an offense-defense paradigm in favor of truth-testing. Moral Skep, Trivialism, Rule-Following Paradox, Münchhausen trilemma, etc. are all acceptable positions for both teams.

Miscellaneous:

Sometimes I may frown while I flow. I promise I'm not mad at you, it's just my natural thinking face and sort of a tic. I'd rather not shake hands, although I've found that if you happen to extend your hand towards me I react out of instinct. Just know that I'm crying slightly inside because I don't have the best immune system in the world and medicine is expensive dawg.

Please speak at a moderate pace with clarity

Judging experiences:

2 years of Parli, 1 year Extemp, Expos, OR

new to other forms of debate

New debate judge. Not strict with flow, but I appreciate clear signposting and concise arguments. I also value the ability to clearly prove solvency through logic and link chains. I'd prefer you be under time rather than over. Good luck and have fun! 

Background

I did policy debate in high school, coached HS parli for Campolindo when I was in college, and now I haven't done any debate in a while.

The rest of this paradigm is from several years ago, when I was more active. I don't think much has changed in the way I'll assess a round, but I'm probably less familiar with trendy arguments than I used to be.

***

Paradigm

• I would consider myself a fairly standard flow judge.
• I can handle speed. I will tell you in-round to clear/slow down as needed.
• I will listen to most every argument and most every impact.
• Walk me through my decisionmaking process. Linearly, how do I get to where I vote?
• Be competitive, but be friendly.

Ramblings

Here are a lot of opinions/things I default to. All of these will be overridden by arguments made in round. That should make this list fairly useless.

Rituals, disclosure

• Don’t thank anyone, dress up, or stand up on my behalf. Debate however you will debate best.
• Off-time roadmaps are coolio.
• Please don’t shake my hand.
• Be friendly. Win your rounds, be strategically aggressive, posture… but at the end of the day, debate is a good place for mutual enthusiasm, support, and respect. If you make someone feel unwelcome, it’ll be reflected on my ballot.
• I have yet to encounter a scenario in which I do not vote one way or the other.
• If a tournament schedule allows it, I’m comfortable giving feedback after the round. I will probably not disclose my decision unless it’s specifically encouraged by the tournament organizers.

Aff disclosure

I think disclosure is pretty cool. I’m willing to vote neg on disclosure theory if the argument is made well (see: Theory).

General strategy

• I never heard of “trichot” in Policy, but I want a debate with a concrete advocacy (political or kritikal) whenever possible.
• No matter what, please read specific links.
• I’m fine voting for a non-topical aff if you win the theoretical debate.
• Use POIs strategically to throw off a speaker. If you’re a speaker, taking POIs is typically a good strategic call.
• Very specific arguments are almost always good!
• For speaker points, I prefer debaters who debate well to those who win. These two are not necessarily linked, but debating well is important for debate as a whole and I hope we all try to do it.

Theory

• Go ahead, read the theory everyone tells you is annoying! I’m down with multiple topicality, spec shells, etc. Just do it well, please.
• Potential offense on theory is not nearly as valuable as specifically articulated misuse of the debate. e.g. if neg reads conditional positions but doesn’t kick anything, why do I care that the arguments were conditional?
• Conditionality
• I tend to think conditionality is good.
• • Use conditionality to highlight the most important negative arguments; don’t use it to waste time.
  • Before kicking a conditional position, resolve offense and extend defense to mitigate it as much as possible.
• Dispositionality: I don’t think this differs substantially from conditionality. I don’t think dispositionality’s disclosure answers “condo bad” arguments, so calling your arg dispo isn’t a get-out-of-theory-free card.

Counterplans

• Absent an articulated framework, I default to evaluate the counterplan like a mutual exclusivity disadvantage.
• Counterplans should be textually or functionally competitive. Net benefits are typically uncompelling.
• If you compete via net benefits, those net benefits should be rock solid versus the perm.
• Here are some counterplans I like:
  • Short delay
  • Word PICs
• Here are some counterplans I don’t like:
• • Long delay
  • Consult
• Permutations
• • Give me a perm text––”do the plan and all non-competitive parts” doesn’t count.
  • I’m friendly to theory that says multiple blippy permutations are bad.
  • Permutations are never, ever advocacies. Giving a rebuttal advocating the perm world as anything but a response to the CP is a bad habit and a good way to get dropped on theory.

Kritiks

• Read specific links. My threshold is pretty high for generic state/cap links.
• Avoid identity args that aren’t specific to your identity.
• I hesitate to vote on performative contradiction. Exception: representations kritiks, discourse links, kritiks with pre-fiat implications.
• I’m plenty open to “cap good,” “heg good,” “realism is real,” etc.
• Framework
• • I want to feel comfortable with my vote, and a good discussion on framework achieves that. I will gladly ignore parts of the debate if there’s a sound theoretical reason to do so.
  • Reading a K? Read framework! Feel free to try to moot the aff by whatever method you like.
  • Answering a K? Read framework! Feel free to try to moot the K by whatever method you like.
• Lit I love
• • Poststructuralism: biopower and its derivatives, Foucauldian sex/gender theory, Foucauldian ableism, Derrida…
  • Representations: security, terror talk, ableism…
  • Orientalism.
  • In general, epistemology kritiks are up my alley.
• Lit I kind of know
• • Baudrillard
  • Afropessimism
  • Lacanian psychoanalysis
• Lit I’m not super familiar with
• • Identity args
  • Nietsche
  • Schizoanalysis
  • Obscure/technical ontology args
  • Very happy to listen to/vote on all of the above, just give me a good explanation of terms of art as they come up so I don’t accidentally vote wrong. It’s on whoever reads the kritik to make sure I understand.

I've been judging for a year now and am still figuring out a few things. I try to flow, so signposting and clear transitions help me a lot. Make very clear which points of the other team you are responding to. Don't mix things up and confuse me. I note everything down and make an objective decision purely based on what I see in my notes looking for arguments refuted and dropped. It's great to be excited, but clarity of delivery helps your speaker points. Don't forget to have fun!

I debated 2 years of open parli at Evergreen Valley HS

Theory and K's are cool, but I put theory before K's unless otherwise specified. Make sure to articulate clear abuse and connect that to your voters or else I cant vote on it!!

- If I ask you for the text of an interp, thesis, or alt pease provide one, it's only like a sentence or two but it can help sometimes if I dont have a lot of paper

Spreading is fine, just dont outspread your opponents. If someone asks u to slow down or clear (including me), then please adjust just a little bit to make the round clearer.

Make your taglines clear and run arguments that make sense. I like case debates because that was my first year of debate before I was exposed to any kritical lit, so run good cases!! Also try to answer at least 1 or 2 questions in your speech.

*** If you refer to immigrants as 'illegal' I will drop you. People are not illegal or aliens; however, some are undocumented

I am a lay, parent judge, who has judged Parli for the last 2 years. Signposting is very important for my flow, and please don't speak much faster than conversational speed, I will not flow everything if you exceed that speed. Kritikal arguments are highly discouraged, however I am willing to vote on lay theory with articulated abuse. I default to Net Benefits, however please still clearly articulate your weighing mechanism and if you choose to set it to something else please be sure to clearly explain and justify it. Clearly articulate your impacts (and why they matter) and don't assume that I will make connections for you. If you have any other questions feel free to ask before the round starts.

tl;dr just do what you would do with any other lay judge.

Tl;dr Debate is a game, so have fun. Just please don’t have fun by pushing other people out of the space.

Background

I competed in parli and policy for Ashland High during all four years of high school. I was pretty active in both the Oregon circuit and the NorCal parli circuit.

Approach to Judging

I don’t believe debate occurs in a vacuum. One of my least favorite paradigms I heard in high school was “If you tell me the sky is yellow, I’ll believe you unless your opponents dispute it.” I know the sky is not yellow; please don’t flat out lie to me in round and hope your opponents miss it. That being said, I will not answer or extend arguments for you, or make cross applications for you.

Also

If you want me to vote for you, make it easy. That means final speeches should include impact calculus and weighing.

General

Please don’t shake my hand. Nothing personal, I just don’t want to get sick and I don’t know where your hands have been.

If I don’t give you feedback in round for whatever reason, you can find me after and I’ll probably be willing to discuss the round with you.

I’m fine with tag teaming, but if it gets excessive then it may be reflected in your speaker points.

Use questions wisely.

Be respectful to your opponents. You’re trying to beat them in a debate round, not verbally abuse them. If someone is startlingly rude or offensive, I’m open to hearing rhetoric turns but would rather avoid this situation altogether.

Krtiks

I will listen to whatever you want to run as long as you can justify its relevance to the round. I was pretty into kritiks in high school. I mostly ran cap, neolib, and absurdity, but I read and heard all sorts of other stuff. That being said, the thing I hated most about the circuit towards the end of high school was that teams started to get away with assuming that the judge knew the argument. Just because I know the argument it doesn’t mean that I will warrant the claim for you. Performance is super fun; I read parts of FDT by YG in a couple rounds last year. If you’re performing something or rejecting the resolution and you don’t have good framework blocks, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Theory/Topicality

I dig crazy theory rounds as long as they’re well structured and warranted. I defer to competing interpretations but if you can prove that reasonability is better for a specific instance, that’s cool too.

Counterplans

If you have one, justify why.

Condo?

Fine.

Speed

I can understand most speed pretty well, but in my experience in high school I only met a handful of people who could actually spread clearly. If you trade speed for clarity it’s gonna be tough to vote for you. If you use it to push your opponents out of round, it will be reflected heavily in your speaker points, but probably won’t lose you the round because I have yet to hear a convincing speed theory interpretation. Please don’t do that though.

I am a parent and first time judge.

I look forward to a great exchange across teams. I respect a free flow of ideas and viewpoints and carry no intended biases into the debate room. I will be looking for those teams that can establish credibility, draw on emotion, and most importantly build their arguments on logic. I will assume anything that is left unrefuted as fact. I also value content over form but don't make me work too hard, stick to a structure.

I am the father of a parli debater and have been judging parli for four years. I work as a software engineer, so if you're debating about cybersecurity, technology, or blockchain, make sure that you clearly understand the topic before you run an argument about it. I will be a lot less likely to buy an argument if I see that you clearly don't understand how it works.

Jargon

Despite judging parli for four years, I am not well versed in much of the terminology in debate. The words "Nonunique," "link turn," and "voter issues" have no meaning to me. Explain exactly what you mean without debate terminology or I will be unable to understand what you are saying.

Case Debate:

The links are your key to winning or losing an argument. Having evidence is key to winning the debate. Quotes, statistics, and scientific studies are all effective. However, understanding the logic behind arguments is important as well. You don't necessarily need to know or explain scientific principles to win a debate, but a basic understanding of the idea coupled with effective evidence will definitely help you win the debate.

I default to warranted high probability arguments. Do not argue about nuclear war unless the topic really calls for it. For example, nuclear war would be acceptable in a debate about North Korea, but it would not be effective in most Middle East debates. Magnitude doesn't matter that much to me if the links to reach that impact are tenuous at best

Double bind arguments are especially effective to me.

Counterplans:

I buy the perm to the counterplan. The plan and counterplan must be competitive, and if they're not the neg will lose. In order for the neg to win on the counterplan, it would either have to be mutually exclusive, or the perm would have to bite into the disads on the neg.

I will buy agent counterplans if the neg can prove significant disadvantages to the actor that the aff proposes. Fifty states counterplans are also effective.

Delay counterplans are effective if you bring up enough evidence as to why the plan should not be implemented now and would work much more efficiently later.

Plan inclusive counterplans are legitimate so long as you keep it simple and explain it well enough for me to understand them.

I don't buy consult counterplans.

I don't believe in conditionality or dispositionality. The neg is not allowed to kick arguments. If you kick an argument, I will treat it as a drop and you will lose.

Theory:

I don't understand theory arguments, so I am very unlikely to buy it. Rather than use the proper theory structure, it would be much more effective to just respond to the definitions without spending time to create an entire theory argument. I tend to believe that the context of a word is more important than the word itself, so when you are defining terms or arguing definitions, use lay terms to explain why your context makes more sense.

Kritiks:

Do not run kritiks. I have no idea what they are.

Speaker Points:

The way that you speak is sometimes just as important as what you say. Make sure you respect your opponents and respect me as a judge. Disrespect leads to some implicit (and even explicit) bias against you on my part. Never make fun of your opponents or judge.

Speak loudly, clearly, slowly, use pauses, and use emotion in your speech to get 30 points. Intentionally change the pace of your speech for emphasis. Use pauses liberally, and speak with emotion. Swaying, shuffling feet, and excessive use of filler words will get your speaker points docked. Chances are, if you use the same word more than 10 times in one minute, I will dock your speaker points. Passionate, emotional speeches can be extremely effective against me so long as it's not too over the top.

Good rebuttals should be slow, clear, and include a good overview. If you have a good overview, reasoning, and make clear weighing in the rebuttal, you'll probably win.

Do not spread against me because I will be unable to understand you. You will also get 0 speaker points if you spread.

Judged Parli before.

My preferences are

1. Content aligning to the case/topic

2. Speaker Quality - How clearly you are able to elucidate and put forth your point

I am a parent judge. This is my second year judging.

Roadmaps and signposting are very helpful so I can have an understanding of where you are going with the speech.

Speak at a moderate pace. Define important terms when it comes to the debate resolution; don't assume I will understand what something is. Clearly state your case and provide sufficient evidence and logic.

Be nice to each other during the debate; do not be rude. Do not interrupt when the opposing team is speaking unless it is for a valid reason.

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

I have judged parliamentary debate before.

Preferences:

1. Talk slowly. I can only give you the vote if I can understand you.

2. Sign-post everything.

3. Be respectful to your opponents and their arguments.

4. Tell me why something matters, meaning don't forget to impact.

While I am not new to the Bay Area Speech and Debate scene with CFL, this is my second year judging Public Forum.

I look for thoughtfully reasoned ideas, the logical flow of the arguments, and the augmenting evidence presented to support the team's position. I also think a good use of time (running down the clock to take advantage of the allocated time) demonstrates a higher level of preparedness and comfort in dealing with the topic.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

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. 

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.

Preamble:

Recent name change: all my paperwork still says America. My name is Junpei (pronounced JOON-pay)

Are you an LGBTQ+ debater or speaker? If you struggling in this activity, in school, or anywhere, I work for the San Mateo County Pride Center. Email me and I'm happy to support. (junpei@acs-teens.org)

Also, I don't have any flow paper, or flow pens. Yeah. I'm that judge now. Providing me with proper flow paper (legal sized thx) won't win my ballot, but it will win my heart.

~actual paradigm~

1. Do not use slurs in front of me. I will tank your speaks and quite likely find a reason to vote you down, particularly if your opponent critically turns your language. Run bigoted arguments and take the L. :) I'm not going to reward racism, ableism, sexism, queer-antagonism, etc.

2. Other than that, I am a flow judge. I like line by line argumentation. Clear signposting is always a benefit. I don't claim tabula rasa, because that probably isn't real because bias and intervention is likely inevitable in human communication. I'll do my best not to do work for either team, and am open to talking it out with teams post round to help keep me honest for future rounds.

3. I dislike but am not opposed to speed. I am open to speed theory.

4. If you are going to run a K, make sure you understand your own framework and your own lit base. K affs are NOT cheating.

5. Speaker points are awarded not on how "pretty" you talk, but rather on the technical accuracy of your debate. I do not care if you sit or stand, how you are dressed, etc. and it will not impact the debate in any way. Just don't be a jerk.

6. Impact calculus is key! Tell me why your impacts matter more, tell me why I should care about timeframe over magnitude. Tell me why probability does or does not factor in. Why do proximal impacts matter more?

7. IN PARLI, DO NOT TRUST ME TO PROTECT IN REBUTTALS. I'll do my best to catch it, especially in evidence based debate wherein I have access to cards. But in parli, call those points of order if necessary.

8. I will only use my own outside world knowledge if asked to evaluate two competing facts in the round. If everyone in the debate agrees that Japan is a country in Africa, I'll go with it. But if one team says Japan is a Pacific island nation near Asia, I'll be inclined to go with that knowledge.

9. I am fine with partner communication. You don't need to secretively whisper what you're feeding your partner. I will only flow the speaker, and not partner comments.

10. Since I keep getting asked; I do not default to competing interps or reasonability. Literally everything requires some amount of judge intervention. Tell me WHY I should prefer one over the other.

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. 

LD:

I look for debaters who are the most calm in the round. Also, I see how the debaters are during their rebuttals and their cross-examination. These are the periods of time I see most important because, the debaters are not reading their cases. They are using their speaking skills to convince and persuade, their background knowledge to debate and refute, and they are showing me as the judge who they are as people.

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!

I am a parent judge. For parli debate, if I am not familiar with the resolution or the topic area, I do my best to research during prep. However, when you debate, please explain clearly what the topic and definitions mean if the res is hard to understand. Please speak clearly and slowly so that it’s easy for me to comprehend. In the last speech, make sure to tell me exactly why you win, what you are winning on, and sum up the debate on why your world is better than your opponents’ world. Be nice to each other!

I am a flow judge. I won't intervene against arguments, unless told to do so. If I can’t vote for either side without intervening, I will go by the path of least intervention.

I vote for a team that has more offense in the end of the round, defense almost never wins rounds.

If an argument could have been run out of the first constructive, don't wait until your second constructive to run it. I will be sympathetic to AR turns against new arguments coming out of the Neg Block.

If there is new offense coming out of a second constructive which could not have been run out of the first constructive (for example, theory in the 2AC against an abusive 1NC), I will cross-apply and weigh 2NC arguments against AR responses myself in order to offset the Aff getting the last word.

All extensions should include warrants and impacts, taglines themselves aren't offense.

If an argument is unclear the first time I hear it, I won’t vote on extensions which clear it up.

I do not require a Point of Order to strike a down a new argument. In a lot of cases, however, an argument is borderline new, I will typically give the speaker the benefit of the doubt unless a POO is called.

I will vote on blips as long as the articulation is convincing and there is clear reason to prefer the blip over all other arguments in the round.

If the entire round comes down to a factual question, I will Google it.

I like when the Aff has a specific plan text and framing. I welcome specification theory on all plans. 

I enjoy listening to structured critical arguments with a clear and realistic alternative made by debaters who have read the philosophy behind them. "Reject" alternatives are mostly dumb. Reading a K does not exempt you from the need to engage with your opponents' arguments. I don't enjoy voting on lazy generic links – adapt your K to the specific issues discussed in the round, don't just regurgitate arguments you dug up from policy backfiles. Reading a K also does not exempt you from the need to make quality warrants - just because some French philosopher agrees with you does not mean that you are right. I have a strong aversion to unnecessary jargon and intentional obfuscation. If you're reading something that you think I haven't heard before, make sure to explain it well enough so that I understand the argument. I will not vote for critical arguments that make no sense.

If you run a procedural as a time suck when there is no clear abuse, I will be open to arguments that theory should be a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability over competing interps.

I default to net benefits. Weigh your impacts for me; the less work I have to do the better.

I'm fine with topical counterplans. I don’t think the Neg should be able to fiat alternative actors, though I won’t go so far as to intervene against that. I prefer counterplans to be unconditional, and I default to assuming that they are unconditional unless you explicitly state some other status right after reading the counterplan text. The same goes for K alts and other negative advocacies.

Moderate speed is fine if it is used to present more in-depth arguments, but using speed as a tool to exclude your opponents from the round is not that okay. I'm won't drop you, but it might impact your speaks. If anyone in the room says 'slow' or 'clear', adhere to them accordingly.

Slow down on advocacy texts (plans, counterplans, K alternatives, theory interps, et cetera) and read them twice. If you write out your advocacy text on a piece of paper and give it to your opponents (as well as to me at the end of the round) upon request, I'll boost your speaker points. 

When signposting, indicate clearly when you are moving on to a new argument. Off-time roadmaps are fine. Do not include any information in your off-time roadmap other than argument order.

If you bring me food or drinks of any kind, it will help your speaker points and maybe even your chance to win.

I prefer teams to take two POIs per constructive speech. On top of that, you should take clarification questions after reading an advocacy text, or you will open yourself up to various specification arguments.

If you say 'illegal immigrant' I will drop you. People are not illegal, some are just undocumented.