Stephen Stewart Middle and High School Invitational
2022 — milpitas, CA/US
Novice Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a first-year parent judge, but I will evaluate argumentative logic first and care about evidence quality and evidence ethics. Speaking presentation and style are for speaker points but do not substantively impact who wins or loses the debate. Please do not paraphrase when you first introduce evidence. Also, please don't speed-read. Speak slowly.
In a debate round, I prefer to see a good amount of evidence followed by logic as to why this evidence is important. Make sure your speech is at a good pace so I can understand the arguments you are making.
I am a parent judge new to debate, expecting students to speak slowly and clearly. Please only assume that I would sometimes know about the topic beforehand. In addition, I might need students to explain their voting issues clearly.
Classes I would not take: AP Chem, Chem H, AP Calc BC, Trig H, Alg 2 H, Geo H
Hi! I'm in my fifth year of public forum debate as part of the MVLA speech and debate team.
I'd consider myself mostly flow/flay and generally tech > truth (with the exception of really abusive arguments). This means I will flow the round (sans cross) and will evaluate any argument that has a clear (and carded) link chain and impact. All your evidence should be carded, but I will evaluate good analytics above bad cards.
Please time yourself and I will keep time as well. Make sure to WEIGH! Make the round as easy for me to evaluate as possible by weighing. If one team weighs, I usually default to their weighing. If neither team weighs, I will have to evaluate the round based on my own understanding of the world and no one wants that.
Any discrimination (racism/sexism etc.) or abusive language (ad hominems etc.) will lead to the lowest speaks I can possibly give you and I will default to the other team. Please introduce yourself with your name, school, and pronouns before your round.
Ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before round!
*above from Audrey Tsai's paradigm <3
Parent judge with a couple of years of judging experience.
I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant, and impact but you should error on the side of over-explaining things if you’re concerned I won’t pick up on something.
I determine speaker points based on clarity, creativity, research quality, rebuttal explanation, and organization.
toc update: haven't been judging much + likely getting no sleep on my terrible redeye to this event :( - probably use ur free fyo strike / err on the side of more explanation / etc
hi! i'm aly: sequoia ’22, harvey mudd '26, qualified to toc x2 (semis senior year)
feel free to reach out if you have any questions
have fun and be kind
please be as clear as possible, signpost, and do complete warranting (a conceded tagline is not an argument); i have no problem not voting on arguments i didn’t understand or flow in the first speech they were introduced
online: record your speeches bc i will not allow you to regive it if you cut out
i primarily read and am better for policy debates about the topic
arguments start at zero and go up with warranting based on the claim, ie larger or unintuitive claims need stronger warrants (spark/ontology need more warranting than nuke war bad/contingency)
compiling a doc and flow clarification are prep or cx; there is no flow clarification time slot in debate
not a fan of scripted rebuttals, arguments recycled across topics, and strategies that rely on your opponent missing something
will not vote on:
arguments that deny the badness of racism/sexism/ableism/homophobia/death/etc, this is probably an auto loss with very low speaks depending on severity
independent voters that are not labeled as such in the speech they are introduced and do not have a reason why they are
less necessary specifics:
needs to prove the aff is bad; links don’t need to be to the plan, but should be to ideas that a good potion of the aff focuses or relies on
if i can’t coherently explain your theory of power back to you, you will not win
please answer the case/contextualize links… or i will probably vote on extinction ows
not a fan of ks that rely on blippy 2nr tricks to win (vtl/unwarranted root cause/etc)
dont like long overviews — preferably put stuff on the line by line and in the order of the 1ar
i will disregard a floating pik claim if it isn’t hinted at in the 1nc or cx
please weigh / ev comparison / argument resolution
spin is more important than the evidence but it’s not if your opponent points it out, so make sure you still have warrants
inserting rehighlighings is fine for defense (but you still need to explain it in the speech), you should read for offense
default judge kick
default policy presumption
good for topic related t args, not so great for spreading through plans bad blocks or any other similar silly generic
theoretical objections to process cps should be permutations, not theory
in the absence of any argumentation(these can all be changed w a sentence): ci on t, reasonability on theory, dtd on 1nc t and theory, dta on 1ar theory except condo, no rvis, t > 1nc theory > 1ar theory > everything else, fairness and edu are voters
non t affs—never ran them, not great for you if you’re aff
please try to put stuff on the line by line as much as possible, or contextualize your top level arguments
don't feel comfortable adjudicating personal narratives/performances/survival strats/ad-homs
if you're going for non util phil you need to explain it very clearly esp if not kant
however most util justifications are missing pieces / assume consequentialism
default epistemic confidence
go slow and be accessible
i will evaluate every round technically regardless of style, that being said lay debaters can beat circuit debaters through solid warranting and isolation of key args
would prefer to see this read as a shell instead of you calling it - if you call it on something friv that doesn’t change the meaning of the evidence you're not getting great speaks. this is what constitutes a challenge:
—card starts or ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph
—the original text of the cited work has been edited (not bracketed)
—card has been cut to make a claim that the actual article does not make (this should be really obvious if you are calling it)
you need a recording and i’ll evaluate based on tournament or nsda standards
toc coaching relationships (this year):
current: notre dame ag, mission san jose ss, westridge tw
previous: basis independent sk, vestavia hills as
Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Presentation High School and Public Admin phd student. I debated policy, traditional ld and pfd in high school (4 years) and in college at KU (5 years). Since 2015 I've been assistant coaching debate at KU. Before and during that time I've also been coaching high school (policy primarily) at local and nationally competitive programs.
Familiar with wide variety of critical literature and philosophy and public policy and political theory. Coached a swath of debaters centering critical argumentation and policy research. Judge a reasonable amount of debates in college/hs and usually worked at some camp/begun research on both topics in the summer. That said please don't assume I know your specific thing. Explain acronyms, nuance and important distinctions for your AFF and NEG arguments.
The flow matters. Tech and Truth matter. I obvi will read cards but your spin is way more important.
I think that affs should be topical. What "TOPICAL" means is determined by the debate. I think it's important for people to innovate and find new and creative ways to interpret the topic. I think that the topic is an important stasis that aff's should engage. I default to competing interpretations - meaning that you are better off reading some kind of counter interpretation (of terms, debate, whatever) than not.
I think Aff's should advocate doing something - like a plan or advocacy text is nice but not necessary - but I am of the mind that affirmative's should depart from the status quo.
Framework is fine. Please impact out your links though and please don't leave me to wade through the offense both teams are winning in that world.
I will vote on theory. I think severance is prolly bad. I typically think conditionality is good for the negative. K's are not cheating (hope noone says that anymore). PICS are good but also maybe not all kinds of PICS so that could be a thing.
I think competition is good. Plan plus debate sucks. I default that comparing two things of which is better depends on an opportunity cost. I am open to teams forwarding an alternative model of competition.
Disads are dope. Link spin can often be more important than the link cards. But
you need a link. I feel like that's agreed upon but you know I'm gone say it anyway.
Just a Kansas girl who loves a good case debate. but seriously, offensive and defensive case args can go a long way with me and generally boosters other parts of the off case strategy.
When extending the K please apply the links to the aff. State links are basic but for some reason really poorly answered a lot of the time so I mean I get it. Links to the mechanism and advantages are spicier. I think that if you're reading a K with an alternative that it should be clear what that alternative does or does not do, solves or turns by the end of the block. I'm sympathetic to predictable 1ar cross applications in a world of a poorly explained alternatives. External offense is nice, please have some.
I acknowledge debate is a public event. I also acknowledge the concerns and material implications of some folks in some spaces as well. I will not be enforcing any recording standards or policing teams to debate "x" way. I want debaters at in all divisions, of all argument proclivities to debate to their best ability, forward their best strategy and answers and do what you do.
Card clipping and cheating is not okay so please don't do it.
NEW YEAR NEW POINT SYSTEM (college) - 28.6-28.9 good, 28.9-29.4 really good, 29.4+ bestest.
This trend of paraphrasing cards in PFD as if you read the whole card = not okay and educationally suspect imo.
Middle/High Schoolers: You smart. You loyal. I appreciate you. And I appreciate you being reasonable to one another in the debate.
I wanna be on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
It's my first time judging public forum, as I am a parent judge. I've seen information on the topic, but I would appreciate it if you really explained your case, warrants, and data thoroughly, or at least until it's clear. The same goes for weighing and impacts. Make sure to really emphasize your points.
Please don't spread, talk super fast, or anything close to that speed. Instead, talk at a pace a small bit faster than normal talking speed. I strongly encourage signposting when you switch topics in your speeches. Please keep your own time.
I vote on case and evidence, as long as you can adequately explain and understand them. I do not flow or vote on cross-ex. No oral RFD or disclosure after the round, so feedback will come out afterwards.
I will do my best to make it a fair round! Thank you for your patience, and have fun!
I have been judging debate rounds for the last 7 years, and high school debate rounds for the last 3 years.
I judge by deliberating on the overall presentation of the debaters, including arguments and delivery.
I prefer a slower round of debate, that allows for a more involved, persuasive style of debate.
I prefer less debate technicalities, and more common sense arguments to make your points.
Debate how you’d like. I’m down to evaluate most positions, including any theory/kritik positions. Feel free to reject the resolution. Tech > truth. I protect the flow but call the POO. Good luck have fun :D
hi, my name is Sam (he/they) and I have been involved in debate for ~8 years. During my time competing, I debated in parliamentary debate for Nueva, mainly in the NorCal circuit. I am open to all types/stylistic forms of debate, so if you are not a NorCal team please don’t feel the need to change your entire debate style for one round. That being said, please do impact analysis (explain to me which impacts matter the most/matter over other impacts) and weigh (tell me which arguments are the most important). Doing both of these things is the easier path to winning my ballot. I have exactly zero tolerance for any bigotry, and I will intervene against any argument that is racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. By extension, do not misgender your opponents—I will tank your speaks if you don’t correct your mistakes immediately. Content warnings are good for making debate a safe space for everyone, so please use them and respect them.
I will try my best to protect the flow. Regardless, always call the POO. Sometimes I miss things, so the best way to guarantee that I won’t miss an important argument is to call the POO. I will try to rule on the POO before you resume your speech to the best of my ability. I can promise anything, but I know this is especially helpful for debaters
Please provide texts of advocacies (plans, CPs, alternatives, ROTBs, etc...) when you read them. I default to texts are binding. If we are online, please pass them in the online video chat. If we are in person, please write them down on a sheet of paper and pass that paper around to both your opponents and me.
I give speaks based on strategic decisions and argumentative execution. I don’t care how you present your arguments, feel free to sit, stand, or do whatever makes you most comfortable. My range for speaks is 27-29.5. If you get above that you did fantastically and I think you should win the tournament. If you got below that you probably did something bad independent of the arguments you made in the round.
I welcome questions about the round/my decision. If you want to ask me questions about the round, please do not hesitate to do so. If we are at an in-person tournament, you are welcome to come find me as well.
If you don’t read a framework, I’m going to default to net benefits. Likewise, if you don’t read a plan, I am just going to assume you are defending the entirety of the resolution as your advocacy. I would strongly recommend that you both read a plantext and a framework, even if it is just net benefits. I will be unhappy if you don’t read a plantext :(
Please try to terminalize impacts as much as possible; I need you to give me a specific and quantifiable explanation so I can weigh the round and thus decide the ballot. If you are reading an impact chain to me, please implicate and terminalize all of your impacts. This is also probably a pretty good way to pick up my ballot. You do not need to terminalize impacts like death or suffering to me; I assume they are terminalize in themselves.
I’m fine with conditional & dispositional counterplans. Just be prepared to defend them if your opponents read condo theory. If you want to read a non-mutually exclusive counterplan, please read competition for the CP and/or be prepared to beat the perm. In the same vein, I’m very down for any strange counterplans so long as you can justify it. If you don’t ask your opponents what the status of their counterplan is when they read it, I assume it is nebulous until they bring it up or you ask.
I’m a big fan of theory, but please make sure to include a specific text and violation if you want to run theory. If you’re going fast, slow on the interp at the very least. If we’re in-person, a written copy of your interpretation would be lovely as well.
I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I think competing interps is a better model to evaluate theory, however, I will happily listen to reasonability if there is a brightline.
I assume all theory is to drop the argument unless told otherwise. I’ll happily vote for drop the debater, but just make sure to explicitly go for that.
Feel free to run Framework T/T-USfg/Ks bad theory. I don’t have a default for theory/kritik layering in round, so please read layering. The outcome of most rounds can be changed drastically by one side reading 30 seconds of layering, so please do it. At the very least, it helps me make my decision easier.
I’m perfectly fine with RVIs, in fact, I think running RVIs in response to theory is a very good strategy and often underutilized. If you’re going to run an RVI, give me a one-sentence overview of what the RVI is, why I should grant the RVI to you, and other important information you feel is necessary.
I’m fine with friv theory. Please be nice to your opponents though—don’t read friv t against another team if you know they don't know how to respond to it. I’m very sympathetic to RVIs on friv shells. I'm more than happy to throw my tech>truth views out the window in favor of accessibility in debate.
kritiks & critical positions:
I love kritik debates and will happily vote for them. KvK debates are my favorite kind of rounds to judge. This may be a hot take, but I also feel like they are the fairest option for neg teams trying to contest the aff K—still feel free to read framework T though.
Assume that I don’t understand your lit base and start from square one and go from there. I have experience and knowledge in critical literature but don’t assume anything.
For non-topical aff Ks, if you are rejecting the resolution, please give topic-specific reasons as to why you are rejecting the resolution. If you’re reading a topical aff k, I’m hyped to hear it. That doesn’t apply to you.
I think disclosure is good but quite unverifiable and invites judge intervention as a result. I am skeptical of voting for disclosure theory, but will probably boost your speaks regardless a bit if someone mentions you disclosed the aff K.
I’m not a huge fan of offensive RoBs, but feel free to read them if you want. Please justify and explain the reject alt if you’re reading a reject alt.
assorted tech stuff:
Feel free to read IVIs. I think IVIs can be quite strategic, and I will happily listen to them. I don’t have much experience with other ld/cx arguments that aren’t common in parli, so i'm happy to listen to phil/tricks but no promises I’ll follow along perfectly.
good luck have fun :D
I am a teacher at Mission San Jose High School.
First and foremost, our school believes in fairness and transparency in debate. For varsity debaters, this means that you are expected to provide wiki disclosure, which must include all of the arguments and evidence that you plan to use in the round. Second, we believe in the importance of reading direct quotes rather than paraphrasing. Finally, you must use email chains to share evidence prior to the debate.
For my decision I will also consider the organization and flow of the debate, and the extent to which debaters are able to effectively convey their arguments and evidence. Debaters should use clear signposting and transitions to guide the audience through their reasoning. Debaters should also be able to adapt their strategy and arguments in response to the arguments and evidence presented by their opponents. I expect debaters to conduct themselves with professionalism, respect and should refrain from personal attacks or disrespectful behavior.
I will judge on Theory only on the varsity level.
If a team did not fully disclose on Wiki for any reason (personal, school policy, ect.) they will not win my vote.
Lastly, such an argument on disclosure MUST be made in the opening Constructive Speech of the team.
In order of importance:
1) Clear thesis of your presentation
2) Development or growth of character/speaker during the speech
3) Know your lines
4) Use of space
5) Moment to moment objectives
I am a parent judge. I listen to the arguments and only judge based on the arguments presented.
Parent judge who is easily confused by debate jargon. I've judged parli several times, but it never hurts to spell things out clearly and speak at a rate that lets me absorb your brilliant arguments. First time judging public forum.
Parent parent judge, I do try to flow. No Spreading, reading faster is ok.
Please be clear and explain your arguments and importance in each round.
Feel free to explain why I have to vote for you. But repetition is not necessary.
Be respectful towards your opponent and follow the rules.
I am a first time judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and avoid jargon. I like quantitative arguments but only if the numbers are right.
Please be clear and explain your argument and importance in the round. Clarity is more important than responding to all the arguments. I would rather have you explain lesser arguments clearly than skim over all the arguments.
Explain why I have to vote for you.
I would prefer you to share your cases with me so that it is easier for me to follow.
Be respectful towards your opponent and follow the rules.
Nevin Pai // 9.30.22
Hey, I'm Nevin. Here's a little bit about me:
- I am a senior at Los Altos High competing with MVLA
- I have only competed and judged parli; most other formats are unfamiliar to me
- I'm in my 4th year of debate
- For e-mail chains use [redacted]
- I strongly advise you not to take AP chem but take AP CS
- Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes fan
- I only believe in going 5-0 or 0-5; no in-between
- I'm happy to answer any questions you may have
- Imma try to keep a poker face but I doubt y'all can read me regardless
- I am a 2nd dan black belt in tae kwon do and enjoy computer science
- I wrote this on my phone - be nice about spelling and grammar !!
My preferences - lets keep it short and sweet shall we?
- Sign post. If you don't know where you are on the flow, I don't either
- Don't be problematic.
- Don't lie/fabricate evidence n stuff - debate is about education and fairness, not winning at all costs
- Weighing is cool. I like it. You should too. I don't have any preferences as to how you weigh
- Theory arguments are cool. That doesn't mean you can win on them without strong warranting. I'm not big on Ks atm so probably don't read them?
- I'm tech>truth. Please understand what you are reading and the arguments you are formulating. Reading a bunch of statistics with no links or terminalized impacts means nothing to me
- Make my job easy. Signpost, collapse n all those good things
- I have a protected flow
- Formal language doesn't impress me but good arguments do. You can be informal or whatever as long as what your saying is of substance.
- Tag teaming is cool. POIs should be verbally requested. Stay within time. POOs are important sometimes so use them, speed is fine but be clear. Cool and unusual arguments will be rewarded with speaker points if well executed.
- I'll disclose if I'm allowed. Everyone gets 28 speaks by default. An amazing argument can earn you a couple points. Problematic arguments can lose you many points
- Lets have fun and be nice - debate is a game and you shall treat it as such
- Follow the tenets of tae kwon do: courtesy, integrity, self-control, indomitable spirit and perseverance
- Above has been (very) adapted from my friend Shaurya Kadiyala's paradigm so thanks to them for the influence
Please speak clearly and slowly so I can understand the arguments you are making. All the best and good luck for all the participants.
I am a parent judge
I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly so I may best understand all your arguments. Place importance on rebuttals and empirical evidence in debate. Also place importance on logic.
I am a first-year parent judge, but I will evaluate argumentative logic and care about evidence quality and evidence ethics. Please do not paraphrase when you first introduce evidence, as our school institutionally believes it a terrible norm for PF debate
I am a parent judge and have volunteered for both speech and debate competitions. Please speak clearly, cover all your arguments, and do not go too fast. Keep your cards ready and promptly present them when asked. I will not be timing and I let the teams be responsible so that I can focus on the rounds. For your final focus, the summary will be very important for scores and my decision. Good luck and have a great round!!!
All the best to all the contestants. Having been a judge for more than a year I look for good eye contact, clear and concise arguments, respectful behavior and clear speaking. Confidence is the key, not aggression.
- My own opinion on the topic will not affect how I judge.
- I enjoy arguments built on fact and logic.
- I enjoy original ideas and enthusiastic performance.
- Feel free to confront, but with grace and respect.
- Good luck!
I don't pay attention during cross fire. Anything brought up in cross fire has to be brought up in the next speech for it to be weighed. All impacts need to be clearly stated.
Just speak clearly. Anything over 150 wpm will not be flowed.
I have some experience in judging parliamentary debate, I would appreciate it if all speakers included off-time roadmaps and sign-posted during their speeches.
Speak coherently, if a K or T-shell is necessary please please please sign-post as you go through it, if it is too confusing I will just drop the argument.
Please speak directly to me, not opponents, be respectful and kind and do your best to keep personal opinion out of arguments. Please take POIs, it will look bad for you if you don't.
If one side is rude or mean to their opponents in any way I will automatically let the other side win, disrespect is not tolerated.
Debate is about having fun! Have fun with your arguments or refutations, don't be afraid to think outside of the box as long as you can make sure I follow along.
As a fellow parent and experienced judge who has presided over more than 30 rounds, may I respectfully recommend that you speak slowly and clearly during your presentation? It would be greatly appreciated if you could begin by defining key terms, stating your standards, and presenting your contentions in a well-organized manner. When explaining your arguments and analysis, please use language that is accessible to a wider audience and keep the round as straightforward as possible.
I am a parent judge.
I value argument reasonability over articulation. Don't think frivolous arguments have a place in debate.
I have some experience with parliamentary judging, for other formats, please explain the format before the round.
I AM A LAY PARENT JUDGE.
First, starting with the obvious, I WILL NOT tolerate any amount of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and/or any constricting or or offensive arguments. Debate is a safe space and you will respect both your opponents and you partner, please do not laugh at your opponents, roll your eyes, or cross-contest on POI's.
Please signpost everything, tell me where you are. Aff case, neg case, where are we? It makes judging so much easier when I know where on the flow I should be, and whether something is offense, defense, or something else.
I do not believe in Judge intervention so I will not protect the last speech. Always call POO's and do not become frustrated or scared to call them/answer them.
Please try to take at least 1 POI per speech, but, do not ask POI's just to waste your opponents time, ask POI's so you can take jabs at the opponents weaker points, or for a point of clarification.
Especially online, enunciate everything and go slower, you can speed your speech up slightly, but do not spread. If you opponents ask you to slow down, please do.
I do not like it when debaters go over the top in speed in a way that confuses both the opponents and the judge, it takes away from the educational value of the debate. Your opponents should know what arguments you are running/what you're saying. You shouldn't be winning on confusion, but instead the actual content of your case.
I prefer if you actually have a understanding of what argument you are reading, I do not like it when debaters only win off of saying certain buzzwords.
I do not usually vote for any over the top, or "quirky" arguments. I do not usually buy very unprobable link chains like climate change from using less paper or nuclear war from a small disagreement. Just keep it realistic. I care more about a probable link chain than if you have big stick MPX that you have no access to.
I prefer if you keep the debate clean and organized, it's hard for me to arrive at a good, strong decision if the flow is messed up everywhere.
Always make sure your case is logical. Tell me a story that makes sense and is easy to follow.
WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Weigh your MPX. Tell me why yours are more important, tell me why it matter. Give me a clear weighing mech, tell me exactly why I'm voting you.
NOVICE (only division I will be judging): DO NOT run K under any circumstances, novice is a space for debaters to learn and new debaters should not be abused by Kritiks. If your opponents are being extremely racist, using problematic arguments, or being offensive, LET ME KNOW. I do not fully understand how a Kritik works and running over the top tech arguments like it will only confuse me. While I want the debate space to be equal and safe, I simply cannot vote on K's because I don't understand them, and therefore I would just be blindly guessing.
Only run theory if necessary. I will not vote on friv, and will be sympathetic to teams who call friv theories out. I will be very sad voting for an abuse AFF plantext, or abusive neg counterplan.
If you perm, explain it to me thoroughly. Tell me why you should be able to perm, what a perm is, and what it does for you in the round.
Overall, don't run too techy things. If you do, explain them to me. You could also just ditch the 'tech' format (EXAMPLE: Just straight up tell me if the other team is abusive and why, instead of launching into a complicated speech filled with jargon. I really don't care about your standards and voters if I don't even know what they are and why they matter) for theories. Just saying (wink wink).
At the end of the day, debate is a safe space for education and having fun. Whether you win or lose, you still have gained something from the round. Never concede the round, and always believe in your ability to be an exceptional debater, regardless of the decision.
Good luck :))
also, if you run an abusive CP and I have to vote on it, I will literally be seething with sadness. dont do it.
Hi! I'm Maya (she/her) and I currently compete in varsity parli with the MVLA S&D team. I'm so excited to judge you and I hope you have fun at this tournament! Feel free toask me questions about my paradigm (weird vocab, further preferences, etc.) before the round.
If I'm judging you, that most likely means you're a novice. It's a-okay to be nervous but remember that you're here to learn and grow <3 I know I get really nervous before rounds and I will do what I can to make this tournament as fun and educational as possible.
TL;DR Be nice, I will drop you if you're blatantly offensive. Debate is for learning, not skewing your opponents out of the round however you can. Engaging with your opponents arguments, doing comparative analysis, and signposting make me happy, messy debates make me sad. I will buy whatever you read if it's conceded, but I will like you more if you keep the debate educational. I'm judging novices so if you read a K or tricksy argument be prepared to explain it well (plus, I probably also won't understand it). I'm proud of you for joining debate and making sure you learn and have at least a little fun is my top priority.
A Few General Things:
BE NICE. As much as I'm sure we all love winning, the point of debate is education. If you're rude, I won't like you and if you bully the other team or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you (this hopefully/most likely won't apply to you!).
I am comfortable with moderately fast speed(~300 wpm) and will ask you to slow or clear as necessary. I dislike speaker points (exclusionary) so I'll just give the winning team 29.5 and the losing team 28.5 - If I hear a funny joke or see you help the other team learn (*cough* theory novices) you'll probably get that bonus .5 points! Anyone who gets less than a 28 was probably rude, less than a 27 means you were downright offensive or mean (I will let you know in feedback).
Please time yourselves (and your opponents if you'd like). Ask if you'd like me to time but I won't really be paying attention to my phone so you should still time yourself anyways. Please try to not go more than 30 seconds over your allotted speaking time, and feel free to call out your opponents if they do by holding up your timer or something similar. I won't flow any new arguments after the grace period is up (and even grace is sketchy, it should just be used to wrap up your speech not blip in a few more responses).
I have only competed in parliamentary debate so please feel free to ask me more specific questions about my preferences for any event. I know the basic rules of each event, have watched demo rounds, and will just vote however you tell me to in round - I love layering, impact framing, weighing, etc. It just makes it so much easier for me to evaluate the flow.
I will buy just about anything you say as long as it's not offensive. You can tell me about aliens or conspiracy theories, but please back them up with at least some logical analysis and be ready to respond to opponent refutations. Please don't make up warrants, if I catch you I will either drop you or lower your speaks depending on how significant the warrant was to your case (I have definitely misinterpreted warrants before and understand the difference between misinterpreting & straight up lying so don't stress, just be honest!).
I'm familiar with the structure of typical ULI debate arguments (and internal links) and can flow pretty well so I will just vote however you tell me to. Comparative weighing makes me smile, if I don't hear any framing or weighing arguments I will cry and have to figure out which sheet is the most important on my own, which probably won't help your case.
- please please please signpost. Tell me when you're on Uniqueness, Links, Impacts, when you're moving onto a new sheet, etc. When doing responses either number them or do some sort of "they say", if you're going down the flow/laid out a clear off-time road map then embedded clash (not explicitly signposting) is okay.
- again, please be nice during cross. Being aggressive is fine, I get you want perceptual dominance, but if you continually interrupt your opponent and don't let them ask any questions then I will dock your speaks. I will not be flowing cross or tag teaming, if you want me to flow a point say it in your speech.
- same as speech times, please time your running prep and say when you are starting time (so if opponents want to time you they can do so as well). If you go more than 30 seconds overtime I will dock speaks (though if you want me to see your opponents going overtime hold up your timer otherwise I won't know).
- weighing or just generally making comparative arguments between you and your opponents makes it so much easier to evaluate without intervening (using personal biases) and I will like you a lot more if you do it. If I don't know what's a voter or what's my top priority then evaluating gets messy and you get to deal with a sad judge (there's not really an impact to the round but do you really want to make your judge sad?)
- I have more case prefs in the Parli notes below, feel free to check them out and see what applies.
* apparently theory is a thing in PF. Check out the parli notes to see more specifics, basically I will vote on whatever you read (though I might be slightly biased against shells like spec & no neg fiat). Theory at this level should be read sparingly, especially when events like novice PF are so focused on having well-prepped case-level arguments.
PF & LD
I think there's a pretty good chance that I'll be judging more than parli for upcoming tournaments, so if you're curious:
- As a parli debater, I don't usually view warrants as a top priority but I know it's different for other events. I won't be great about flowing specific warrants – I will try – but if you want me to look to a specific piece of evidence please highlight it and emphasize the key parts for me, don't just blip them in and extend in your final speech (I may miss it on my flow and think it's a new point). I probably won't call cards unless prompted, so be prepared to call out your opponents if you think their stats are sketchy. If I do find out you've made up warrants you will be docked speaks and this will definitely affect the strength of your case.
- If you read a value, tell me why I should evaluate the round under that criterion and then tell me why you win under it – I can't vote for a team just because they have an uncontested value criterion if their case doesn't apply.
- Please time your own/your opponent's cross, prep & speech times, you can hold up your stopwatch to the camera or send a message to chat if your opponent is going way over time, if they're past the grace period I will stop them. I may keep a timer, but I'm not super consistent about that.
Parli General Notes
[this is tech stuff]: I default to K > Theory > Case, but you can definitely convince me otherwise. feel free to ask me specifics but I mean if you're going to go for layering then you should really just tell me how to layer and I will buy whatever you say unless your opponents contest it.
- please layer the IVIs for me, and I'm not a huge fan of friv IVIs :). do they come before theory, and why? etc.
I will try to be as unbiased as possible, but I'm also aware that I am a human with unconscious biases and will do my best to check that. Unless something is blatantly offensive I will buy any conceded arguments but please do not say an argument has been conceded when it hasn't. As a debater I always get annoyed when someone says that I conceded something and this will likely carry over into my judging.
If your opponents ask 2 or more POIs, please take at least 1 unless there's flex time. If you don't I definitely won't buy must ask questions counterinterps and I will probably drop you by like 0.5 speaks.
I will do my best to protect the flow but I recommend that you call the POO just to make sure I catch it. I buy golden turns and am not a fan of shadow extensions (I probably won't strike it from the flow, but I will give it less weight).
I'm familiar with debate jargon, but your opponents might not be. Again, just be nice.
I love a nice clean case debate :) Signposting makes me really happy and makes it easier for me to flow. Have clear and organized uniqueness, links, internal links, and impacts, that's all I ask. I think I tend to vote for the team that has the clearest & strongest link story and arguments for why their impacts outweigh. I will do my best not to intervene, I buy anything if it goes uncontested, but if your link is sketchy then my internal biases may take over.
I've said this earlier on but I love weighing. Just tell me what to do, it makes it so much easier to vote. If the other team does any weighing or framing, contest that. Because then I have 2 weighing claims and it's all a big mess again and now I'm sad. On that issue, do engage with your opponents. Your case comes first, but that doesn't mean you can have no refutations. Then, especially without those weighing claims, the flow gets really messy, I'm sad, and I will likely have to intervene (use my biases on which argument comes first) and make a decision you might not like.
IMO case debate is pretty straightforward so just debate how you usually do and I'll give you feedback where I can. Try to keep a good balance of offense and defense when making responses.
Counterplans: I love these, I view them as an opportunity cost to the aff. Read whatever you want, agent, delay, process, PIC, whatever, but be ready to face theory if you do. Please have solvency, I have a high threshold for what it means to be mutually exclusive so you'll definitely need a DA if you want to compete via net benefits (I don't buy counterplans along the lines of "don't do the aff, instead do this completely unrelated thing that could be done in the same world as the aff plan" unless the aff totally drops it/doesn't perm it). I buy the perm as a test of competition, but again, explain to me why there are more net benefits to the perm than just the CP. I don't have an opinion on condo, so I could be convinced either way if a condo shell is read.
I prefer interp -> violation -> standards -> voters. You do you but it'll make it easier for me to flow and evaluate if it's read this way. I default to competing interps over reasonability, but you can easily change my mind – also, I won't do anything with the shell unless you tell me drop debater/argument and whether or not it's a priori/whatever order you want the debate to be evaluated on.
Please be nice to novices who have not learned theory yet! I get that it's another way for you to win, but again, debate is supposed to be educational and I will like you more if you try to create a positive, encouraging community for everyone. This doesn't mean you can't read theory, but just be patient with your opponents and be ready to explain if they ask any POIs.
I would prefer that you keep the debate educational, especially at the novice level – ie avoid frivolous T if possible. If your opponents are cool with it I think funny T is funny, but shells like must spec what branch of the USFG or netspec annoy me and I'm probably biased against them (though again, I will try to check my bias and vote as tabula rasa as I can).
Similar to impacts, do weighing where you can. What voter am I prioritizing? How do you win on that voter? Which standard is most important?
I'm 99% sure I will only be judging novices and if you are reading a K as a novice you scare me lol. If you don't know what this is you have no reason to be concerned.
I buy anything. Again, BE NICE. Ks are confusing to your opponents and to me. Explain clearly for everyone's sake and be patient (though I will be understanding if you're rushing to finish reading your K). I've read lit for setcol and queer theory + debated some cap and K affs, so I will probably be able to understand your K but I'm probably not going to know the context for any of your warrants – if you're going for one, explain it to me please.
I don't know any tricks or phil arguments. (e.g. grains of sand, I've heard of it, I don't buy it based on the explanation I've been given) Again, if you're a novice and you're reading this you terrify me (in a good way) but I likely will not understand this argument unless you explain it REALLY clearly.
Mistakes happen! I've definitely read some sketchy arguments that I myself didn't particularly appreciate, and I will definitely not look down on you for reading a sketchy argument. Your opponents are probably going to have good refutations so just look at this as another learning experience and opportunity to improve - Seriously, this is your novice year. It's the prime time to make mistakes, have terrible prep and 2 minute speeches, make epic fails (all of which I've done), as long as you take what you've learned and use it to improve :)
If you made it to the bottom, thanks for reading my paradigm. Know that I am so proud of you for having the confidence to go up, compete, and speak in front of practical strangers for however long your event lasts. Debating and competing in speech is scary, I've been there and still am there most of the time. While I will be judging you in terms of who wins, know I will not be judging you as a person based on how good of a debater you are. Honestly, I was probably worse than y'all as a novice and I can't wait to see you grow and become the scariest competitors on the circuit!