John Lewis SVUDL Invitational formerly SCU Dempsey Cronin
2022 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
Parliamentary Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
My experience: I've done 6 years of PF, 4 years of Worlds, some parli and LD. I won NSDA Nationals in Worlds with West LA Violet.
TLDR:Make it easy for me to vote for you: collapse to your best arguments, tell me exactly why you won the round, and weigh your arguments. I am a traditional debater, K's and unnecessary theory will fly over my head. Don't be a jerk.
I am so sorry but I will forget your off time road map immediately after you say it. You can still say it but please sign post, even in the beginning. ex: "starting off on their case..."
I do not take any knowledge or opinions with me into the round (I reserve the right to drop you if you blatantly lie to me). So you MUST tell me why I should prefer your rebuttal over your opponent's argument or vise versa. You must tell me why I should be more convinced otherwise it is a wash.
To sum it up, I am a traditional debater. What this means is that I don't have experience with Ks and generally do not enjoy theory, especially when the theory isn't helpful to the round. I leave my opinions at the door, so you have the benefit of me believing everything you tell me (don't lie), but the burden of telling me why/how your opponents are wrong. I vote off of weighing: you need to tell why your arguments/impacts are stronger than your opponents (are they more probable? do they affect more people? do they happen longer?) -- think impact calc. Additionally, this is not policy, link your arguments back to your value/value criterion. Please see the bottom of my paradigm for my general debate preferences.
I believe public forum is a debate event that anyone should be able to judge: debate how you would in front of your classic soccer dad (meaning don't spread, explain things thoroughly, treat me like a lay judge). That being said, I debated for over 6 years, so I will flow and evaluate arguments as such. Note theory and Ks do not belong in public forum, do not put them there. Please weigh. FF is the most important speech, tell me the key reasons you win, do not rebuttal. Please see the bottom of my paradigm for my general debate preferences.
I don't care about your studies or examples or statistics if you don't tell me WHY they are true and the LOGIC behind them. TERMINALIZE YOUR IMPACTS, ASK POIs, and WEIGH. I vote off of weighing, it doesn't matter if you win your argument if you don't tell me why it is the most important to me.
If you don't offer at least 2 POIs you won't get higher than a 27.4 for speaker points.
No friv theory. If you are running a K, I am not familiar with any K literature other than a spreading K. Make it easy and accessible or do not run it. I very much dislike Ks other than ones about spreading/accessibility of debate, or any if your opponents are racist, sexist, antisemitic... Do not spread. Accept at least 1 POI in your speech if given the opportunity. I will protect the flow but feel free to POO anyways.
I will not be excited if you speak very fast, if you use cards (don't mistake cards for examples), if you use debate jaron (ex: perm, squo), or if you don't collapse the debate in the 3rd speeches. Note: the reply speech is not the fourth rebuttal-if you do not weigh, I will not be doing it for you and will tank your points. Remember the protected time and ask POIs. I find POIs integral to the event and will be evaluating your strategy using them. I also value traditional worlds debate, please do not bring policy and ld into this event.
Key issues for all debate:
*Collapse and Weigh. Don't go for every argument you make-pick 1 or 2 and let me know why they've won you the round. That being said, if there's no clash or attacks on your case and you feel like you can fully explain 3 arguments go for it-but make sure to weigh or I'll just pick the argument I like the most (and we both won't be happy).
*I don't flow crossfire, bring up any important issues in speeches.
*Cards don't cancel out cards without reasoning, let me know why their evidence is flawed/why I should prefer yours. Examples don't cancel out examples too.
*I won't call cards unless you ask me to or unless it seems obviously false/made up. Don't make up evidence, cut evidence so that the meaning of the card is different, or lie to me, you will get the lowest speaker points available, the loss, and reported to the tournament. Debater: call out evidence you need me to check. I will call the card after the round to read it myself.
*I don't like tricky frameworks, keep it simple or have great warranting. Debates should not be entirely framework or definition debates-I dislike those.
*I have a basic understanding of theory/kritiks, but I have a PF&Worlds background so if you do run it, have warrants, but I won't be overjoyed and most likely won't understand. I am a traditional debater, if you do run these against another traditional debater and try to win on sheer tech, it will not go well for you.
*You have to explain warranting otherwise I will not buy your argument.
*Don't "card bomb" I prefer a couple of key responses with logic/evidence to support it. if you read several cards, take the time after to explain the importance and why I should care.
* I like empirics on top of logic, but if something just makes sense I will most likely buy it.
*Don't be tricky. Don't be condescending or rude, don't be a douche. If you are going against a novice be accessible in your words: don't use jardon or push tricky arguments on them. Debate is about accessibility and having fun and if you do any of these things, you don't deserve to win the round.
*Do not call your opponents or their case names. No personal attacks. I will give you a 24 for speaker points. Calling your opponents names is not an adequate refutation.
*I do not take any knowledge or opinions with me into the round. So you MUST tell me why I should prefer your rebuttal over your opponent's argument or vise versa. You must tell me why I should be more convinced otherwise it is a wash.
I go by normal speaker point standards where 27.5 is the average. 30 is I think you could win finals at the tournament and below a 24 is you stabbed your opponent with a pencil.
I am a parent judge who has little experience. Please refrain from using theory and kritiks as well as jargon.
I enter round tablarosa, and want to see a good, equitable debate.
Most of all, make sure to have fun!
Parent Judge, for about 2 years
- Not too familiar with either, but if you run them be very clear
No Spreading, If I can't understand you, I cannot judge you
I judge with a blank slate, explain and develop all points
Be respectful and have fun :)
LD/Parliamentary Debate Coach - Cogito Debate — (2021-Present)
LD Brief Publisher - Kankee Briefs — (2019-Present)
Varsity Policy Debater — UNLV (2019-2021)
Varsity Policy/LD Debater — NWCTA (2017-2019)
-Put me (firstname.lastname@example.org) on the email chain (yes, even if its LD)
-Not a good K hack judge - I don’t know as much lit and think framework args are true. I won't not vote for a K, BUT don't be mad if I miss something or think aff centric rejoinder is cool
-Line by line muy importante. Keep speeches organized if at all possible and try to clean it up if you can.
-Tech > truth - I try to not intervene unless someone is intentionally excluding someone from the debate space
-I will yell “CLEAR” on Zoom if you’re unclear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t be blamed for less the suburb flows.
-Theory on any issue is okay, BUT slow down and give extra pen time theory. This includes more policy oriented arguments like ptx theory, but not LD trix like permissibility or NIBS.
-None of my preferences are hard rules and are just what I am biased towards. I will vote on any issue if need be
-Inserting rehighlighted ev is cool
-Write prep down on Zoom chat
-Tell me if I need extra paper for say an long K overview
-Creativity in quality arguments is rewarded
-Quote I stole from Gomez:
I will not give up my ballot to someone else. I will not evaluate arguments about actions taken when I was not in the room or from previous rounds. I will not vote for arguments about debaters as people. I will always evaluate the debate based on the arguments made during the round and which team did the better debating. Teams asking me not to flow or wanting to play video games, or any other thing that is not debate are advised to strike me. If it is unclear what "is not debate" means, strike me.
-I'm chill and don't care if you need a second for tech issues or to take care of something
-Quote I stole from Danban that is somehow now relevant, “ [I] won't vote for any argument that promotes sedition.”
-If you have any questions about my paradigm / RFD, please email me or just ask in person.
-I’m pro ptx DA gang though to be honest 99% of them are made up and don’t make sense
-Recency for ev helps. For example, please update your July econ UQ answers you cut at camp
-Utilize DA turns case and link turns case arguments more
-I usually err neg on CP theory since borderline abusive fiat debates can be fun
-Its probably best to functional and textual competition
-I think CP's with internal net benefits are neato
-Intrinsic and severance perms are more acceptable if the CP isn't as theoretically legitimate
-I’m cool if you tell me to judge kick the CP, but the 2AR can object if they want to
-Wouldn't suggest running them in front of me
-Ks should have specific links to the aff
-Links of omission aren’t a thing
-I like more consequence centric K debate (i.e. cap good/bad) as opposed to high theory Baudy quackery
Theory / T
-Hot take - most T args are rubbish except T-FMWK.
- Current thoughts on common theory issues
-Competing interpretations good and most affs T should be read against aren’t reasonable
-Functional limits args aren’t convincing if the plan is able to spike out of common DA's
-International fiat good
-Consult Process CP bad
-Perfcon not necessarily bad, but does likely justify severing representations
-Word PIKS bad
-Disclosure good, but probably not good enough to be something worthwhile voting on
-Caselists and specific explanations of what can / cannot be read under a certain interp are helpful
CX Specific Notes
-I think T-Substantial gets a bad rap - its likely necessary against most fringe affs unless you’re going for the topic K or disad, or very contrived CPs (not that there’s anything wrong with that
-I default to util = trutil and think teams running structural violence affs still need to answer disads regardless of the framework debate
LD Specific Notes
-I don't care if it's a lay debate or not, set up an email chain.
-Separate theory under/overview jazz from solvency and/or framework arguments
-Nailbomb affs are bad - theoretical spikes aren’t super justified
-Same with chunks analytical paragraphs that suck to flow - separate args please
-Since LD is weird, I’m cool with new theory args at any point in the debate if it is justified (e.g. judge kick the CP or the 2NR reexplaining the K as a PIK). Otherwise, try to introduce almost all theory arguments to the 1AC, 1NC, and 1AR
-I know a lot about whatever the current topic may be even though I do CX - you don't need to over explain stuff and can be somewhat fast and loose when explaining certain topic specific knowledge
-If you're second flight, I'm down if you come in and watch first flight. Otherwise, please be there when first flight ends, and know who your opponent is in case I don't know where they are.
-quote from Alderete I liked “LAWs Specific* References to The Terminator will be considered empirical evidence. References to The Matrix will not, because that is fiction.”
I am a lay judge, i have been judging for 3 years. My preferences:
1) Speak clearly and slowly to build and argue your contentions
2) Prefer No Theory or Ks
Be courteous in your questioning and speaking.
7/10 on speed, so long as your tags are clear, you're not using speed to obfuscate or misrepresent evidence, and voters are delivered intelligibly.
Policy: I am most comfortable judging a stock-issues oriented policy round. In particular, solvency arguments can be decisive. Generic DAs are fine, but a specific link to the 1AC will always be more compelling. K's are fair game as well, but I tend to want a more specific link for a K than a DA. Common Ks like the Cap K or Fem K are exceptions to this - those Ks are common enough that the Aff should be prepared to debate them regardless. I take a tabula rasa approach to any question surrounding the "role of the ballot," so if you win ROB in a particularly favorable fashion, it can set you up very nicely.
LD: I am extremely comfortable evaluating framework arguments. I prefer a Value/Criterion framing structure for LD, but won't complain if you do something different, so long as you meet the resolution (assuming it isn't a K aff - I tend to view Ks as Neg ground).
General: I expect a bit more than simply regurgitating pieces of evidence. Analysis isn't necessary for every piece of evidence, but if there is a string of cards building some sort of overarching argument, one or two sentences wrapping it up shouldn't be too much to ask. This is especially true for any rebuttals!!
There is almost no chance of me voting for an RVI, unless there is a case of in-round abuse.
I am lay parent judge. I am good with progressive and critical arguments within right context.
I’m a parent judge, and this is my second year judging debate. I have judged policy and parliamentary debate. I have extensive background in issues of national security and finance.
I ask that you please speak clearly and not too fast. Try to resist from filler words. Most of all, I ask that you are respectful of your opponents.
I appreciate logical and clear arguments backed up with evidence. Demonstrate that you understand the implications of your arguments on a micro and macro level.
Please note that I am a lay judge and English is not my first language. Please do not rush and speak clearly so that I can understand you.
I view logic as the most important factor for my decision. Please provide clear reasoning as to why your argument makes sense and is better than that of your opponents.
I also highly value the evidence you support during the round. Please give credible evidence and citing the evidence will help as well when I try to determine if the evidence is credible.
Lastly, please have a professional tone and attitude while speaking.
Quality of arguments. No intimidation tactics. As debate progresses want to see quality of counter arguments. Facts can be presented but not basis to win argument (more about logical flow and follow through). Talk at a pace that is understandable and short summary at the end always helps.
Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.
Email chain: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks
-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.
-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.
-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.
-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.
Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds
-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.
-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.
-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.
-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.
-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.
-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.
-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.
-Answer theory please.
Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background
West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know so you need to tell me what I need to vote on verbatim. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.
CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.
Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.
Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.
Parent judge in 4th year of judging. Has judged almost entirely LD, with a 1-2 PF and Policy rounds as well.
Note for SVUDL Fall 2022:This is my first time judging parli. Please explain all debate jargon used or avoid it all together. I would still like to see cited evidence (see below) when possible, but understand that this can be difficult in Parli.
Truth > tech. I prefer realistic, well-warranted impacts over blippy extinction link chains. If I don't buy it, I won't vote on it. Avoid Ks, T, and all other "circuit" debate argumentation, I will not know how to evaluate them.
Logical responses are also important to me - if something your opponent says is simply illogical or contradictory, call them out on this, even if their argument is warranted. It shows that you are able to think critically and not just regurgitate evidence.
Evidence quality is very important to me. Please provide full author citations. Smith 19 doesn't tell me anything - Smith could be your neighbour for all I know. I love to see comparison and indicting of evidence as it shows me that you are well prepared and know the topic literature.
Please do not speak too fast and sign post clearly. I am flowing and will evaluate on argumentation, but if I cannot understand what you are saying I cannot flow or vote on it.
Please be respectful in round. It makes for a good debate experience for both the debaters and the judge. Speaks WILL be docked for rudeness.
If email chains needed: forrestfulgenzi [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"
Background: Debated policy debate for four years at Damien High School and currently the head coach over at OES. Have been involved in the debate community for 10+ years teaching LD and Policy Debate.
Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.
Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.
Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards.
Hi, I'm Yang, a senior at Leigh High School.
I've been competing in speech and debate for around 7 years now and taught/coached public speaking and debate for around 3 years. I attempt to be a flow judge. When judging, I try my absolute best to not fill in any blanks during the debate. If you do not explain the impacts or significance of your contentions, I will have no reason to vote for them. Please do impact weighing at some point during the round so I know which side to prefer, do not expect me to do impact weighing for you.
I do value evidence and cards a lot during the debate, but I also understand the use of logic and reasoning. Although I do prefer an argument with a card over one without, I will still weigh a contention-based on logic and reasoning as well. I dislike when teams run a card without understanding the logic behind that card as it can lead to logical fallacies and misunderstood arguments. Please always send cards if your opp asks, I will buy T for disclosure.
I am ok with theory with kritiks, I will buy into them if you explain them well. Make sure to explain the significance of your T or K and why I should prefer T or K or else I will not vote for it. I dislike abuse of power when running K or T. If you run K or T against a newer team that does not understand K or T and do not give them an understanding of your T or K, I will still probably vote for you but give you very low speaker points. In the same sense, if you run a T or K shell in your first speech and drop it mid-round, I very much will dislike it but I will not vote against it unless the other team runs T. Again, if you do this, I will drop your speaker points.
Other small points:
I do not flow cross, I will listen but please extend important responses in speeches.
I have no bias for T or K so please explain why I should vote rather than saying "K should be preferred over T" or vice versa.
Overall I do not like speed. I see no benefit in spreading and am inexperienced with very fast spreading. If the other team runs spreading T and uneven grounds, I probably will buy it. If they do not call spreading out, I will not vote on it but I might drop speaker points.
I will try not to buy new arguments in the rebuttal speeches on purpose, but I still expect a POO from OPP.
If you rap or sing a sentence or phrase of your speech I will give you +0.1 speaker points :D
I'm a relatively new parent judge. I appreciate signposting. Just speak clearly and do your best.
Background: I debated parli for four years with MVLA.
Please signpost as much as you can.
I am fine with speed, but will vote on speed theory.
The easiest path to my ballot is clear and explicit weighing.
I was primarily a case debater, so I love a good case debate. Big fan of creative advantages and disads. Please make sure your link stories are clear.
My partner was a big fan of theory so I don't mind it at all. Run friv theory at your own risk.
I was not a K debater but have a relative understanding of the more generic K's. If you decided to run a K, please make sure you genuinelly understand it, explain it thoroughly, and define odd jargon. Overall I was never a huge fan of K's, but understand their value.
If you have any questions about my judging preferences, feel free to ask me before the rounds starts.
-K's are cool, theory is not as cool
-English is my 7th language
-Not a parent judge but please don't start spreading at 250wpm
Please be clear, slow, thoughtful and respectable. Looking forward to hearing your speeches!
- Clear and concise communication. I am more likely to vote for you if you nail your delivery with confidence.
- Sign post.
- Explain your case as if I know nothing. I want detailed speeches, refutes and impacts.
- For any wondering, I announce winners right after round to spare anticipation.
Congratulations for being part of the Speech & Debate Club. Your enthusiasm is truly impressive.
I am a new judge for this event. I appreciate clearly articulated sentences and confident tone. Also I favor logic and reasoning over style, but this doesn’t mean style is less important.
If the opposing side doesn't refute or touch on one of your important points, please state it during your next speaking time.
One last note. Please no spreading, no K's, No T-Shells and No Topicallity.
I am a contributing editor at The Arts Fuse, Boston’s online independent arts and culture magazine. My work has also appeared in a wide variety of publications, mostly focusing on arts criticism with the occasional interview or personal essay. I also teach composition at a local college in New Orleans. I think that this background gives me a particular sensitivity to, and appreciation for, the use of language as a persuasive device. Critical writing, as opposed to writing fiction, is rooted in the ability to transmit information and analysis to the reader in a way that can be pointed, accessible, and enriching. This gives me a unique position, I think, to be a public forum debate judge. I have judged several tournaments over the years, which included invitationals from Harvard, Yale, Bronx Science, and elsewhere. This has sharpened my ability and interest in the way rhetoric is used. Arguments can get heated, no doubt, but they are the most persuasive when they are offered with a sense of objectivity, balance, and an appeal to everyday relatability. Ideas and concepts that can be explained to anyone who happens to take an interest are more persuasive, in my experience, than overly technical language or abstruse rattling off of sheer data. As a writer, I value transparency and accessibility above anything else. This informs my judicial philosophy and shapes my attitude towards what makes for an effective debate. I look forward to participating in this year’s event.
A Proud Indian Law Student from Bangalore is obsessed with debate and the culture of sharing knowledge, perspectives, and experiences! Has organized and hosted multiple debate tournaments across continents and is a debate and judge coach to Indian debaters in the British Parliamentary debate circuit. Proud to be the youngest person to break as a judge in multiple university-level international tournaments and an enlisted national level judge frequently in ISDS (Indian School of Debating Society). I genuinely want to create a beautiful world of debating and bring out the attractive potential of judging and debating within myself and others.
In any given debate, there are a few baseline criteria I use to evaluate arguments and speeches:
1. Clarity: tell me what the debate is about and what it should be evaluated on, e.g. helping vulnerable groups, maximizing freedom of choice, etc. These should ALWAYS be followed by mechanization.
2. Mechanization: do not just state claims and rebuttal them with counter-claims. Mechanization means giving me strong reasons why your claim or counter-claim is accurate and why it is crucial in the debate and the MOST IMPORTANT in the debate. That means you must do good quality weighing along with your mechanization.
3. Weighing: Take the other side's best-case scenario, and do a comparative analysis with the average case or worst case scenario on your side. If you can show me that even if your side's best case does not work, your average or worst case is still better than the other side's best case, and give me strong reasons as to why you've scored a solid win.
4. Engagement: being genuine in addressing the other team's case is key to winning a debate. Do not assume points for the other side or try to water down their issues without giving me a proper rebuttal. Listen keenly to what each speaker says, and do your best not to run away from the core of their case, even if it seems complicated to engage with. Try your best!
5. Structure: present your speeches in a clear and straightforward way. Complexity does not win debates; simplicity does. Clear structure and detailed but straightforward analysis make it easy for teams to understand your arguments and for me as a judge to do so as well. I value signposting (giving me a brief outline of what you will talk about in your speech), flow (signalling the end of one argument and the beginning of another), and clear comparatives throughout the speech.
6. Team Dynamic: how you and your partner present your case. I need to see strong support structures and extensions to strengthen arguments and see well thought out speeches that do not sound contradictory or confused on one end. Cohesion and synchronicity are critical!
7. Respect: let's not be derogatory or discriminatory towards anyone in the debate. Let us not think differently of them because they have different accents or are not from where you are from. Any slander, arguments based on stereotypes, lack of respect for gender identities and general offensive language will result in repercussions and a report to the tournament organizers. Let's celebrate diversity and culture, and learn from different perspectives!
Good luck, everyone!
I am the Advisor for our Speech and Debate team and a judge with one year of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, and oratory skills. Please be respectful during the round.
I am lay judge with no recent judging experience.
I will not bring other knowledge into the round, which means that it is your job to explain all your warrants and their importance in the round to me. Please be slow and clear when you speak- you can't win a round if you've made it inaccessible for your judge. I am not familiar with any tech debate (so no Theory or no Ks). I have a very basic understanding of the structure of debate, so overly complicated case structures and link chains only risk losing me. Regarding Counter-Plans, please explain why your counterplan is competitive with the plan- otherwise, the counterplan is effectively useless in the debate. If you are Perm-ing the CounterPlan, clearly articulate how and why the perm works, and why the perm means I shouldn't consider the CP. In the Rebuttal speeches, please clearly weigh and tell me why you are winning the round. Solid weighing is probably the easiest way to guarantee your path to the ballot.
If someone is clearly problematic and disrespectful in the round, then I will drop them. Debate should be a safe space accessible to all who participate in it. Be kind and respectful of everyone, and have fun!
I am a parent judge, and now, I think I am an experienced judge. English is my first language. I prefer organized, consistent, clear, and logical explanations. Good luck!
I'm a lay parent judge with little judging experience. I will flow and take notes.
1. please signpost
2. no spreading please, I'm not good with speed
3. Be courteous - no profanity
4. Make well-explained arguments that are warranted and have clear impacts
5. Give me a clear reason to vote for you (weigh in your last speech)
6. You can try theory but it has to be really well explained (explain the abuse) or I'm not voting on it and please no Kritiks
I've judged parli for several years now.
Please enunciate and speak slower. Especially with debates online, sometimes I struggle to hear speeches properly when someone is talking fast.
Make sure you have logical arguments with clear reasoning that I can flow.
Do not try to run theory or kritiks.
I encourage POIs
TL;DR - Parent judge who was a national circuit policy debater in high school and college long ago (see experience at very bottom of paradigm). Judging mostly open/varsity parli since Fall 2018 with some LD, PF, and Policy judging the last couple of years. Sections below for Parli, PF, and Policy.
General Overview: I will evaluate framework/criteria/theory/role of the ballot issues first. Unless argued/won otherwise, I default to judging as a policy maker weighing aff plan/world against status quo or neg counterplan/world using net benefits and treat debate as an educational game. I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals (summary/final focus in PF) even if you don't call a POO (Parli). I'm fine with tag teaming (but only flow what the actual speaker says). Speak from anywhere you prefer as long as everyone can hear you. When speech time expires, you can finish your thought, but I will not flow any new arguments started after time expires (no new args in grace period). Cross-ex/crossfire will not be considered in my decision unless you reference it in a speech (that will bring it into the round). You can go fast but probably not full speed (not 200+ wpm). I will call clear or slow as needed. If you run K's, please clearly link them to the resolution/aff plan/aff arguments and explain (K's post-date my debate experience). Signpost. Clearly justify/link theory arguments (high bar for you to win frivolous theory). Don't care about your attire. I rarely look up from my flow during rounds. No need to shake my hand.
If allowed by the tournament rules, please add me to your email chain (if applicable) using edlingo13 [at] gmail.com
Parli Debate Notes (though much is applicable to all forms of debate):
** Note to Tournament Directors - Please add Flex Time to High School Parli debate (see sections 4.C. & 4.H. of the NDPA rules for a definition of Flex Time). I think it will increase the quality of debates/clash in the round, give judges a bit of time to clean up their flows & make notes for later feedback to debaters, and ensure fairness in how much time is taken for each speaker to start.
In the absence of a contrary framework argued/won in the round, I will make my decision as a policy maker comparing the aff plan/world against the status quo or neg counterplan/world.
Unless argued/won in the round otherwise, I think debate is an educational game. I believe the educational part is primarily for the debaters and only secondarily (at most) for the judge(s) and/or audience. This is one of the reasons I have trouble with K's that are loosely, if at all, related to the resolution being debated. The game aspect of debate implies a need for fairness/balance/equity between aff & neg sides.
With the above defaults (and realistically biases) in mind, I will try to come into the round tabula rasa ("blank slate"). Certainly I won't intentionally bring my political biases into the round. I will try to minimize using any outside knowledge of the topic, but realistically some of that may creep in unless background information is clearly explained in the round.
Especially if you don't like the above framework, please do provide your own in the round. I'm far more likely to make the decision you expect if I'm using framework/weighing criteria that you know (above) or have argued/won in the round.
Fine by me. But as with everything else, please explain/justify the theory arguments you make. Don't like blippy theory you toss out in hopes the other side will drop your one line VI/RVI or, similarly, some pre-canned, high speed theory block that even you don't understand (and I can barely flow, if at all).
As long as you can still be clear, I am fine with any speed. I will call "slow" or "clear" as needed during the round. But, it's still best to slow down on tags and issues you believe are critical in deciding the round. Especially in the first tournament or two of the year and the first round in the morning, best to go a little slower for me. If you want me to get a clean flow, keep things to a max of perhaps 200 or 250 wpm rather than 350 or 400. Don't spread in a monotone. I know from experience that it is possible to add (brief) pauses where there is a period, slow down on tags, and vary your speed while still averaging 300+ wpm. If you are going to go very fast, it is your responsibility to practice it until you can do so with clarity and in a way that can be flowed.
K's post-date my competitive debate experience. I have read up a bit on them and seen them used in a few rounds (parli and policy rounds). If you run one (or more), make sure you have a clear link to the resolution/aff plan/aff args. It's also important that you clearly explain the K to me and to the other team (including why it applies in this round and why it should be a voting issue). Just spreading through a K that even you don't understand in the hopes I will understand it and your opponents will mishandle it is very unlikely to be successful. On the other hand, if you understand it, clearly explain it, and answer POI's from your opponents if they seem confused by it, I will seriously consider it in my decision. If you plan to run a K-aff, please disclose to your opponents at the start of prep (or earlier). If you don't, a theory argument by the neg that you should have done so is very likely to win.
Counterplans seem like a natural fit for Parli to me. Especially with a topic that gives the aff broad leeway to choose a somewhat narrow plan, CPs are a good way to make the round fair for the neg side.
I will extend arguments that your opponents dropped for you (I think this is now called protecting the flow), but it's still best for you to extend them yourself so that you can explain to me why/how those dropped arguments should factor into my decision. When you extend, I don't need you to re-explain your arguments or extend every individual point in a block that is entirely dropped (though no harm in doing so). How you believe the dropped arguments should impact the overall round is more important to me.
New Arguments in Rebuttals/POO's:
I will ignore what I believe to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, so you don't have to call a POO. However, I do understand the general POO process. So if you want to make certain that I will be treating something as a new argument in rebuttals (and therefore excluding it from my decision making process), go ahead and call the POO. I'd prefer that you don't call a lot of POO's (more than 3), but certainly won't count it against you if you feel the need to call each one out. Though odds are if you are calling that many, I already get that we've got a rebuttal speaker who doesn't realize I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals.
Fine by me. I will, of course, only include what the actual current speaker says in my flow.
Stay sitting, stand up, or go to a podium. It's all fine by me. However, if you are a quiet speaker in a noisy room and/or I or the opposing team call out "clear", "louder", etc. please speak in a direction/location that you can be heard by all. I'm fine with taking some time before a speech or stopping time during a speech if we need to adjust everyone's location so all speakers can be clearly heard. If someone can't hear the current speaker, I'm fine with them calling out "louder". If the speaker can't easily adjust so everyone can hear them, go ahead and stop time and we will take time to rearrange so you can be heard without having to shout.
PF Debate Notes:
My apologies in advance as I have only judged perhaps half a dozen PF rounds. I am familiar with the basic structure of PF and have extensive experience judging and competing in other forms of debate. Even though I have only judged a few PF rounds before, here's a few notes I hope will help you.
- Because I am flowing, I don't need you to do a whole lot to extend dropped arguments. If you are pressed for time, and, for example, an entire contention is dropped by the other team, you can just say "extend contention 2 which is dropped". It can help to reiterate the arguments to help fill in details I may not have gotten right on my flow or to draw my attention to particular impacts, but there is no need to individually extend every element of the contention. You can save the analysis for weighing.
- Please do your best to clearly weigh impacts in final focus. I know time is short. However, if you leave it up to me to weigh the advantages of both sides against each other, you are taking a big risk. Best to explain to me why you believe your impacts (harms/benefits) outweigh those presented by the other team. Though not required, I am fine with some weighing also happening in earlier speeches (summary, even rebuttal). For example, if after constructives you think you clearly outweigh, no need to wait until final focus to point that out.
- I don't flow crossfire, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in crossfire to be part of my flow/input to my decision.
- Where there are evidence conflicts (each side has evidence saying the opposite), please do your best to explain why I should prefer your evidence over that of your opponents (study vs. opinion, better author credentials, recency, etc.).
- In general, do what you can to provide clash. If each side just reiterates and defends their own case, that leaves a lot up to the judge. If you want my decision to go your way, best to provide that clash/analysis so I know why you believe you should win the round.
- Unless not allowed by tournament rules, I prefer to be on the email chain -- edlingo13 [at] gmail.com (mostly it helps me fill in my flow if I missed anything).
Policy Debate Notes:
- Debated 4 years of policy in high school (in CFL/California Coast district, went to State & Nationals, won State), but that was long, long ago.
- Defaults: I will default to judging based on stock issues as a policy maker. For theory issues, I will default to treating debate as an educational game (game implies fairness/equity). On both counts, I am open to alternative frameworks/roles of the ballot.
- Theory, framework, K's need to be developed/clearly explained to me and your competitors or you will have an uphill battle trying to win them (doesn't mean you won't if the other teams drops it or grossly mishandles it, but I do need a basic understanding of your argument in order to vote on it). Likewise, calling something a voting issue doesn't make it one unless you explain why it should be a voting issue.
- I know very little K literature.
- I won't be able to keep up with a full speed/invitational/tech debate these days. But you can certainly speak at a rate that the "person on the street" would think of as quite fast. I will call clear/slow if I'm having trouble keeping up.
- I don't flow cross-ex, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in cross-ex to be part of my flow/input to my decision.
My competitive experience is almost exclusively policy debate from the late 70's and early to mid-80's. Four years in high school policy debate (1 yr Bellarmine followed by 3 yrs Los Gatos High). Quarters or better at many national invitational tournaments (e.g. Berkeley & Harvard back when they weren't on the same weekend ;-). 1st Place California (CHSSA) State Championships. Invites to national level round robins (Glenbrook, Harvard, UCLA/USC, Georgetown) -- back then the tournament director invited those teams they believed to be the top 9 in the country (perhaps a few more if some teams couldn't attend). In high school I briefly experimented with LD. During my senior year in college (UC Berkeley), I debated one year of CEDA debate. Went to perhaps a half dozen tournaments. Won a couple of them, made it to quarters/semis at some others. Helped the Cal team reach #2 in the national CEDA rankings.
Lay judge. Do not use jargon or terminology. Please do not speak quickly. First debate tournament.
I am a parent judge.
I will drop you if you spread or run theory. I cannot evaluate circuit LD.
Signpost so I know where you are on the flow. Make sure to impact your arguments well.
Be respectful and courteous to your opponent.
1. Please speak slowly & clearly.
2. Please be respectful of your co-debators and judges.
3. Enjoy you experience.
4. Please don't lie & fabricate evidence to make victory.
5. Don't interrupt others & be disruptive.
6. NO racist or sexist or hateful arguments.
Look forward to being a judge!
Teacher at Benicia High School (English/Speech & Debate). More compelling logic wins. If no clear winner, decision based on flows.
- Give an off-time roadmap
- Have fun
Please DO NOT:
- Run complex theory without explaining
TLDR: Run whatever you want, I'll vote on the flow and whatever fw you want me to evaluate.
I am a Communication Studies graduate from CSULB. I competed for El Camino College in NPDA / IPDA / Limited Prep Speeches / Interps for 2 years. I am currently in my third year of coaching the Palos Verdes High School Speech and Debate team. If there are any questions or preferences let me know.
Communication: Communication with your partner in any manner is fine, but I will only flow whatever the present speaker says. Be respectful to your opponents and your partner.
Speed: I don't mind speed, just speak clearly and concisely. I won't call clear or slow because it's your time and you can use it however you want, but I may give nonverbals to indicate you are going too fast or are being unclear.
Kritiks: Kritiks should have a clear link to the resolution. Advocacies and their solvencies should be clearly explained. K's (esp on the aff) should have a very clear fw for evaluation, a K without fw is hard to evaluate. Run whatever K you want. I primarily ran anthro when I was competing so I may be a little more critical if thats what you run, but I don't pretend to be an expert or anything. Identity tix are cool and fun arguments that are beneficial to debate and individual agency, however, they can also easily be used to bully, silence, or provoke reactions from other teams when weaponized incorrectly. I won't tell you how to run identity arguments but know that it's somewhat of a grey area for me as far as voting.
Theory / Topicality: I'm open to a good T debate so long as it's properly structured (interp viol stds voters). I don't mind running shells just to kick them, but it's a very bad decision to collapse to a theory shell that is clearly just a time suck. Honestly open to any theory position, even jokey stuff as long as it's not bad, just don't run dumb stuff in the MO (I've seen new theory in the MO and it was a mess). MG theory is fine, should be fleshed out though. I'll default to competing interps but you should state that somewhere in the theory.
RVIS: I don't hate RVI's or IVI's but it's not the most compelling argument. If a team is reading 7 blipped out T shells and 3 blipped out specs then yeah run an RVI but other than that, all instances of spec T and other theory are not cause for debate collapse or abuse.
Signposting: Please have brief taglines for your arguments, I can't vote on an argument if I don't know what to call it, where it fits, or why it matters.
Timing: Time yourselves and time your opponents. I don't mind if you are slightly under or over time, but be sure to make sure it's not abusive. Call your opponents on time abuses if they are happening.
This is my second year judging Parli debates. Below are some guidelines that might be useful:
- Manage your time well. Be respectful to one another.
Speak slowly and clearly. It is not a contest for cramming the most amount of content
Fewer arguments well developed > too many undeveloped arguments
Hi, I'm S. Menon, a parent judge from Washington High School.
A good debater needs to ensure that the topic is properly introduced, with sufficient background information and useful definitions.
I would want a convincing case with:
- An approach to the debate in the context of a wider, real world discussion.
- Proper use of evidence to make a well-structured, clear argument
- Intellectual sophistication (sophisticated ideas/arguments NOT sophisticated words)
- Persuasiveness, passion and animation (as opposed to aggression)
- Relevant questions to opposition
- Addressing the weaknesses in the opposition's arguments with evidence
- Response to all arguments and clear refutations
- Intellectual flexibility to respond to different lines of argument instead of continual re-emphasis of one point
- Appropriate body language
- Volume and diction; do not talk too softly or too fast
- Courtesy and politeness to the other side
What I do not enjoy and appreciate in a debate are....
- Aggression or bullying (Passion and animation are good. Aggression not so much).
- Unnecessarily large words; these do not prove intellectual sophistication and instead complicate the case
- Do not get so stuck arguing about the word choices of your opponent, that focus shifts away from arguments/evidence.
- Unnecessary use of POI's in the middle of the speech; use when necessary and only necessary. They distract not only your opponents but also the judge's train of thoughts.
- I do not like to hear statements that start with words like "We will win this debate because...", "Our argument is better because" etc.
I am a lay judge, so I would appreciate it if the debaters used as little theory as possible. I will accept theory if I deem it necessary and it is clearly explained to me.
Have judged a few rounds, but not much experience. Stay organized and have good impacts.
Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS
Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to email@example.com
tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice
It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method or a critique of net benefits.
I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.
Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."
Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.
I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.
I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.
Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?
I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.
Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.
Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.
To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.
Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).
Please make sure to speak clearly and be respectful to your opponents. I like arguments that are easy to follow and backed by evidence.
Voters: Weigh the arguments very clearly for me, and don't let me guess. I look for impacts and framework.
Violations: If you don't POO, I'm going to act like it never happened. If your opponent goes overtime, I will continue flowing until you call POO.
Theories are interesting, but I'm not familiar with all the literature, so I highly prefer if you run them in moderation, if at all. Also, I discourage K's.
I will try my best to understand you, but if you want to be safe, don't spread.
Make sure to signpost. I don't want to guess all of your arguments. Make your contentions very clear.
I like to see clash. Address all points on both sides so that I don't have to guess how it all plays out in the end.
I don't care how you POI, but most debaters seem to like for their opponents to just unmute during their speech.
You don't have to have your camera on.
Former college policy debater and speech competitor. Been coaching speech and debate for the last 12 years.
A fan of clean, structured, easy to follow debates. I'm big on pre-speech road maps and internal signposting. Staying on track and explaining to me where you're going indicates to me that you are in control of the round and your performance within it. Debates that get muddled aren't fun for anyone, so keep it clear where you are cross applying and clashing.
I won't time anything in round. Keep tabs on each other.
I do prefer you extend thru summary if you have time so I know what you're going for.
Definitions only help us stay on the same page so when they are helpful, they are appreciated. Totally down with an overview.
Also fine with jargon. Competed in policy so speed shouldn't be an issue. I prefer it to be a little slower as this is PF, but if I can't understand you it's almost certainly an issue with articulation, not speed.
Impact weighing should be a primary part of your final focus. If I don't know what you impact out to then what are we even doing here and why does it matter? I do my best to leave my biases at the door, but that also means I will not intervene for you. Don't sprinkle a trail of bread crumbs and lead me down a path without actually ending up somewhere. Don't imply impacts or warrants, state them directly. You shouldn't make me work to follow you, it should be easy.
Speaker points for me are a function of your ability to logically break down and explain your points in a clear and concise manner. In my opinion it's not about how pretty you speak, that's what IE's are for (a stumble here or there means nothing to me in debate). Be clear, articulate, logical, and explain where you are going and you'll get high speaks from me. Be warned though: in 12 years of judging debate I have given out less than 10 perfect 30's. To me, 30 means perfection, as in you could not have done anything better whatsoever.
Framework is cool with me. Makes it easier to weigh the round.
Truth over tech.
Any other questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.
I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.
Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.
Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.
I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Over time shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument
A couple of notes
Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.
I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.
I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qualified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!
Notes on Education
Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.
I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.
Evidence often is not enough
Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:
1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.
2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.
From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.
Counterplans and debate tech
Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.
I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.
I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.
How we treat each other
This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.
I am a parent judge who started in 2019. I have judged mostly parli bc that is my child's format, but I have been roped into LD and PoFo, so I have familiarity with those events as well. I am most comfortable judging parli. I do my best to understand and properly flow debaters’ arguments. I want to give everyone a fair chance in debate, based on the merit of their arguments and the delivery to me. I have a few requests and guidelines for you, as debaters.
I don't really buy the whole If You Give a Mouse a Cookie string of events, like offering AP classes in HS will lead college TAs to all end their lives. (not being disrespectful or flippant regarding suicide - this is an actual argument I have heard). I have heard so many prepackaged arguments about the most benign policy leading to mass poverty, poverty is cyclical, it takes seven years off your life, etc. If it is something that a reasonable person could see would lead to everyone falling into abject poverty, I would buy it, but I don't buy the overterminalizing. Funding playgrounds will not lead to nuclear war. Adding Finland and Sweden to NATO will not lead to extinction of humanity. (One really good, intelligent debater who was in the unfortunate circumstance of finding herself on the Opp side of an Aff skewed res in octos or quarters had to actually resort to that as a last ditch effort, and while I appreciate the endeavor, I could not buy it.)
Please don't be theory-happy. Use it only if other side has made an egregiously irrelevant or extratopical argument or interpretation. I feel like teams have gotten all too eager to use this and of all the theory shells that have been run by me, I have not found a single one compelling.
I am not smart enough to understand these. If you choose to read one, I'll try to understand it, but you are likely wasting your time (and may fry my lay judge brain!). From what I see, people spend a lot of time working on these and just waiting for a time to bust them out rather than actually putting work into a good debate. But go for it if you feel like it.
Please don’t lie or fabricate evidence. It’s better to lose a round for a lack of evidence than to lie your way to victory. The whole point of debate is to be educational to both sides of the argument and lying voids that altogether. Lying is cheating. It can get you in trouble. If I catch you lying, I will take appropriate action. Without lying, debate is much more enjoyable and fair for all parties.
Please signpost! Since I am new and rather inexperienced at flowing, signposting is very useful. Signposting allows me to be more organized. If you do so, I will be able to judge your debate more fairly, with more understanding of each argument.
Please be clear with every aspect of your arguments, from links and impacts to delivery. This helps me understand and judge the round properly.
I understand that non-speaking partners may need to support speakers when it is not the non-speaker's turn, but I find too many interruptions, constant and audible feeding of content, and taking over for the speaker to be irritating, distraction, and signs of poor preparation and lack of professionalism. At best, I will not flow or consider any content presented by team member when it is not their turn and at worst, I may dock you for it. If you must provide your speaking partner with your thoughts, please try to do so quietly, unintrusively, and if possible, non-verbally.
I take judging seriously, but am not power trippy. I am pretty relaxed and understand that you have put hard work into this tournament and into this round and have gotten up early to do it. I appreciate that. I think it's great that young people are doing this and you have my respect and admiration. I understand that it takes guts, even for more experienced or less shy debaters. If you are new, I want to encourage you, so please do your best, but if you are struggling, I will not look down on you. Use these tournaments, especially when I am your judge, as learning opportunities to work on shedding inhibitions and becoming a stronger debater.
I write A LOT. I try to get down every word a speaker says, and thank goodness, because I have had to use my copious notes to decide whether an argument or stat was brought up previously when an opponent claims it was not! Since I am scribing away, I may not look up at you much or make eye contact. If I don't return your eye contact, please don't take it personally. I encourage you to look at the judge and at your opponents and audience since this is what is intended for a real life application of debate, such as in an actual parliamentary, political, or courtroom setting. Especially for those who are more shy or new, please take advantage of this smaller and perhaps less intimidating setting to practice making meaningful eye contact to help you in the future.
If I look at my phone during a round, I am not texting or playing 2048, as I most likely am every minute between rounds ;-) I am checking exact wording of a res, time, or something regarding the content. I take my judging duties very seriously and am always mentally present during rounds!
I appreciate you putting your time and energy into debate. I want to do my best as a judge to make it fair and enjoyable.
Run racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or other hateful arguments
Be overly invasive or picky with POIs (one novice debater used one in her first tournament to question the speaker about his discrepant use of 72% and 74% when referring multiple times to what portion of the US's cobalt imports come from China - c'mon. In this case it didn't warrant a POI.)
Speak too quickly for me or your counterparts to understand
Be a jerk to your opponents, even (or especially) if they are struggling and especially if you are a stronger team/debater or older or more experienced. I appreciate that it takes guts to get up there and speak. If you snicker or smirk with your teammate or send (zoom) or write (in person) each other rude messages about the other team and share derisory laughs, I will go exothermic. I will let your coach, your school, and tournament directors know.
Follow the norms of Parliamentary Debate
Feel free to remove your mask if tournament rules allow it
Have fun and not be overly aggressive
Thank your opponents
Be ready on time for the debate
This is my first time judging a parliamentary debate. Please speak slowly and make your arguments easily understandable.
I have judged at many middle school tournaments and high school tournaments including JV and Varsity but explain your contentions.
Do not spread. If you do, I will most likely stop writing on my paper and give you an auto-loss.
I like to evaluate on your method of weighing and your ability to provide reasonable arguments with support. Lots of debaters use net benefits, but if you want to use something different go ahead! Just make sure arguments actually tie to it.
Otherwise, have fun!
hi, i'm ethan (any pronouns), a junior parli debater with mvla. i've had 12 different partners so you might've seen me on the circuit as MVLA XP, SP, LP(x2), BP, WP(x2), MP, ZP, CP, KP, PP, or any of those codes with the initials flipped. i'm down to hear anything as a judge. just do the kind of debating you want to do.
tech > truth. this is your debate, feel free to run whatever you want. signpost, extend your arguments, and do good weighing.
- all arguments need a claim, warrant, and implication or else i won't vote on it
- you don't need cwi structure, just tell me what your arg is, why it's true, and why it matters
- extend your args through every speech. If you drop it once, it's dropped
- signpost pls! helps me with my flow
- collapse. collapse. collapse
- weighing is cool! metaweighing/impact calc is cool too!
- i'm comfortable with speed, but don't spread out your opponents
- i'm timing you, but also time yourselves. i won't flow over time
- tag teaming is fine
- trichot is fake. debate the topic however u want, just be ready to win the fw/theory debate
- i tend to look at uq frames the link a lot. think carefully about your uniqueness.
- i also find myself evaluating a lot of debates on strength of link... think about that.
- terminalize your impacts pls! just saying "econ goes down" is not enough.
- spec-affs and cps are pretty cool if they're done strategically
- im fine with condo but also receptive to condo bad args
- the perm is not an advocacy, it's a test of competition.
- give me texts & read me solvency
lay vs. tech
this is just a rant, skip it if you want. i don't understand the divide between "lay" and "tech" debaters. the way i see it, everything in debate is just an argument. i don't see why debating solely the topic (and solely in a "lay" way) is uniquely educational, especially when all the evidence in parli is garbage and the topics are recycled from tournament to tournament. so i (as a debater not a judge) don't really like case rounds. to me, parli is not a space for learning current events and policymaking. if that was its sole purpose, i would hate this space since it likely spreads more misinformation than anything else. instead, i think parli is a space to learn how to think critically and construct arguments critically. i like theory more than anything because it's fun to run and gets people thinking critically. i like ks for the same reason. i think if people stopped being so scared of certain arguments and just tried their best to engage, they'd stop hating different style of debate so much. i've lost rounds running theory against non-theory teams. i've beat ks even when i didn't have the best k experience myself. it's possible. just ask pois and make logical responses.
- i've read everything from paragraph t to tropicality so i can roll with anything (just be accessible)
- i'm fine with jargon like 'apriori' but lowk just describe what ur talking about instead
- i default to competing interps
- i have no default for drop the arg vs. debater. if i don't hear one or the other, i don't eval the shell.
- give me a brightline if you're trying to win reasonability
- the rvi is underrated but if it's just timeskew idk that seems easy to beat
- i've personally had more success with the oci or metatheory than rvis
- the k is a tool for accessibility. don't make it inaccessible
- i like creative ks!
- fiat alts are weird but hey i guess this is what we're doing now
- i'm familiar with queer theory, basic cap, and a smidge of lacan
- i know some pomo (mostly baudy and a little dng)
- if ur reading a k-aff, please disclose
- i don't know how to weigh phil. i like phil! just tell me how to weigh under it
- my threshold for tricks are weird. give me a warrant and implication ig? and extend it through each speech
- i can eval paradoxes just read me an implication
- i'm down to hear a performance, just give me solvency
- competing skews eval claims are weird. please resolve the layering debate for me?
- my fav fruits are peaches
- i flow poi answers (these are binding)
- call the poo. i protect, but articulations on new args is cool
- i grant the pmr and lor new weighing and meta-weighing
- i occasionally allow new impact framing as long as it isn't abusive
- pmr gets golden turns on new args + shadow extensions
- imo the pmr is broken if you can weigh. i'd suggest flipping aff in front of me.
- speaks r weird. i might buy 30 speaks theory
this paradigm is long. i know. i make it this detailed because i don't want to underestimate 'novices'. if you don't understand half the stuff in this paradigm, that's fine! ask questions if you have them or just try your best to enjoy the debate and make the debate enjoyable for your opponents. i'll give in-depth feedback and disclose if allowed. good luck!
Hi, my name is Ruturaj Pathak, and I am a parent judge. I have been judging debates for 3 years now. I judge fairly in an unbiased way. I like the teams to be respectful of each other.
Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as you enunciate, and everyone can understand what you are saying.
POIs: Have no more than 3 POIs per speech otherwise it is disruptive. Please use them correctly and ask them in a form of a question.
I always flow the debate and write what you speak. I judge on clear contentions, evidence that supports them and impacts. I also like clear refutes based on logic and analysis. Clear evidence strengthens your refutes.
I add 10-15 second grace period to your time to allow you to complete your chain of thought. But I will not add or write any new information presented once you pass your time limit.
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.
Hello! I am Logan (any pronouns), a junior at The Nueva School. I have about a year of experience in varsity parliamentary debate.
TL;DR: Let's have fun and learn!!! I am chill with any argument you want to read unless it harms your opponents or me. Read content warnings for potentially sensitive topics please and wait before continuing (if you are not sure give the warning). I am not amazing with speed so if it is too fast I might ask you to slow so I don't miss anything but more likely i might miss a warrant or number (for novice just be as clear and concise as possible but no worries)—but go fast and I will ask if I need. Please signpost and be clean on the flow. Make the debate as easy for me to evaluate as possible.
This paradigm mostly exists for me to understand and write down my current opinions on debate so I can look back on this later. Also I got bored one time and wrote this whole thing at once so read at your own risk.
Tech > Truth—I will buy any argument or warrant that you read unless your opponents contest it (but like don't make up evidence because thats dishonest and it upsets me). PLEASE PLEASE signpost (tell me what arguments you are responding to or talking about) the best you can. It makes it the debate clean and allows us to have to most productive and educational debate. For plans and alts please drop the text in the chat if you can.
Please signpost. I will be very happy to hear a clean case round (especially in novice its pretty epic). Please terminalize impacts (explain to me why economic growth is good). I would like if you structured your advantages/DAs in uniqueness, link, impact format but any way you want that explains what the plan does and why that is good or bad is okay. I like strongly warranted link and fleshed out link scenarios and I think that many case teams (including myself) undercover link warranting in prep.
If that is too confusing, the essence is that you should explain in a step-by-step process, with evidence, what happens when the plan passes and why that is good or bad.
Read your CP (counter plan) and I will evaluate it. I think that delay, consult, etc. are fine I guess but can tend to reduce education (read theory if u want). If it's novice and you can avoid abusive CPs try to as best as u can.
Also please remember, a counter plan is not an advocacy for the negative, rather it is generally an opportunity cost to doing the plan. What this means is that by doing the plan, you are missing out on the opportunity to do the counter plan. Thus, the counter plan is a reason not to do the plan.
I'm down for any type of theoretical/topicality debate. If this is novice (it probably is) and you are reading these arguments you are going to have to do a whole lot of work making this argument clear to your opponents. I think that it is bad for education and immoral to use these arguments to crush a team that doesn't understand them. Still by all means, if abuse has occurred read theory.
In terms of frivolous arguments I will be happy to hear this and I will vote on this but please (especially in novice) make sure your opponents can understand the points you are making. Remember debate is an educational space and there is no education garnered out of winning simply by confusing you opponents. If you read these arguments to exclude there is a chance I will drop you or tank your speaks.
I default to competing interps bc idk what is reasonable unless you tell me why that is reasonable which is basically your counterinterp i think. Basically just read a counterinterp.
I would love to hear a clean, signposted K debate on the aff or neg. If you are in novice you probably shouldn't be reading a kritik (although you can—learn by doing ig) but if you are make sure you are inclusive to a debate with the opponents (usually this just means having a good understanding of what you are reading and answering POIs). Once again, if you use this argument to exclude I will tank your speaks (still prob vote on the flow tho :/ ). Please don't make me tank your speaks.
I am comfortable with cap, have a tiny bit of understanding of neocol and am mostly unfamiliar with anything else. If you read these arguments make sure you understand them well otherwise there is no chance I will be able to :) . Please don't make me listen to a K debate that proves you don't understand what you are reading (not fun trust me i have done this).
It's good to provide specific links that prove why the aff or the res links into your K. This means doing more work than reading the generic links on the backfile you are probably reading off of lol.
I have no experience here so explain the best you can.
Again, no experience so explain.
(Point of Information/ Point of Order) I don't flow POI answers. Over zoom it is usually helpful to give POI/Os verbally because people often can't see you. If you have another way discuss this before the round. Call the POO if you don't have the point flowed. I will protect but I might miss something if you don't call. After 2 POOs u can assume I will be alert so don't worry, i got u. Usually these arguments won't make a difference anyway.
I see no fair way evaluate the way you spoke in the round in terms of like floweriness or whatever but I will do my best to distribute between a 29-30 for the winning team and a 28-29 for the losing. I will make this decision based on your organization (please signpost) in the round.
Things I will prob drop you for:
Purposeful misgendering, use of slurs, use of tech purposefully to exclude people, any anything else that is problematic or excludes people from debate.
I am a former debate coach and debate tab staffer at many regional and circuit-level tournaments in California. I competed in student congress and have actively coached congress, speech (e.g., oratory or platform events), LD, and public forum debate. I competed from 2006 to 2008, coached from 2008 to 2013, and tabbed from 2011 to 2022. My specialty is in tabbing and evaluating TOC-level congressional debate rounds.
Outside of speech and debate, I have my PhD in Social Psychology. I focus on group identities and how it affects our thoughts and behaviors. Between that and my other professional experiences, my view of speech and debate has now become focused on the communication of information and logical arguments for an audience.
Here is how this has affected my perspectives of debate rounds:
- Do not actively harm anyone else in the debate round. Personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or similar actions detract from the speech and debate experience. If you engage in any behavior that actively harms yourself or a competitor, I will give the win to your opponent and immediately let tab staff know of your behavior.
Think about what you plan to say or do before you say and do it. This can often lead to a better round and less potential for unintentional outcomes from a round. This can also help identify biases within ourselves and each other that affect what we do and do not perceive or how our words and actions can affect others. I am trying to learn how my biases influence how I see the world, and I hope you take time to do so as well.
- Any argument that you want to run that does not actively harm yourself or your opponent works for me. This includes traditional and progressive arguments. Importantly, any argument that you want to run is fine with me if you can explain the argument in simple English. Tell me why your argument is relevant and matters in the round, and I will evaluate it. Arguments filled with excessive jargon without an attempt to explain it in simple English will likely be ignored.
- Debate is inherently an activity based on value judgements. Arguments that focus on an empiric as the take-home point (e.g., we save x more lives than our opponents or save x more money than our opponents) do not inherently have value by itself. You need to tell me why your evidence and analysis matters (e.g., overall, our side allows us to achieve something we value or avoid something that we do not value). Tell me what matters, and tell me why I should weigh it above your opponents' case. On average, I will value plausible evidence more than implausible examples. As an aside, extinction arguments will usually be ignored and excluded from my flow if it is irrelevant to the topic.
- It is up to you to convince me as a judge that your evidence is (1) valid and (2) relevant to the round. Sensationalist or inflammatory arguments or evidence that do not add to the overall logic or arguments of the round will be ignored completely (e.g., they will not make my flow sheet). It is your responsibility to ensure that your argument is (a) not sensationalist, (b) not inflammatory, and (c) relevant to the round
- I do not support the game theory of spreading, or the idea of running so many arguments that it is impossible to counteract all arguments in a specific round. Communication matters. Speed is okay but spreading is strongly discouraged.
- Most debates focus on a specific topic or point. Although it is a tactic to focus on a specific aspect of the debate, concede that point after much of the round has passed, and then state “I concede the point that we spent much of the round that we discussed while still winning on the rest of my case that my opponent has overlooked,” I find that to be a very cheap debate tactic that does not have much real world applicability. If you and your opponent explicitly or implicitly focus on a specific point or area of contention within a round, I will decide my ballot based on that point or contention.
- Specific to LD: I need a value. Morality is not a value, as groups define what it means to be moral (Ellemers et al., 2013). I need to know a specific value that you think I should promote or prefer in the round.
- Specific to Congressional Debate: You may have noticed that I said I competed in student congress but evaluate congressional debate rounds in my introduction. That is intentional. Congressional debate has grown into a multifaceted event with nuanced arguments regarding policy and societal proposals and implications. Assume that my rankings is based on diversity of skills (e.g., can you give multiple types of speeches), essentialism within the round (e.g., what was your holistic effect within the round, or how would the round be different if you were not in the round), and quality of novel arguments and argument advancement during debate on a topic.
- I rank presiding officers and know how to evaluate them based on 2 years of being a presiding officer and 14 years of evaluating student congress and congressional debate rounds.
- All things being equal, I rank students lowly who only give crystallization speeches within the round. The goal of congressional debate is to advance discussion on a topic. There are many ways to do so (e.g., sponsorship, early-cycle extension speeches, summary and late-cycle extension speeches, and crystallization speeches). All speeches have value, but I prefer students who show diversity in their speech types when possible. When diversity is not possible, I need to know how your speech extends an argument above and beyond summarizing what was previously discussed. Often, crystallization speeches summarize events without extending discussions. In rounds where it is possible for all speakers to give two speeches, I rate students who choose to only give crystallization speeches lower.
Overall, I hope you have fun, communicate clearly, use valid and relevant evidence effectively, and be respectful of yourselves, your opponents, and the community. We all showed up because this is something that we enjoy. Treat others with the respect you hope to be treated with, and I will do my best to treat everyone with respect throughout the round.
Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)
ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.
What I like:
- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.
- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.
- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.
- Framework - I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).
- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.
- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.
-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.
What I don't like:
- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic. I am not a fan of spec arguments.
- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, make sure your K somehow links to SOMETHING in the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 2, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 3, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.
- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.
- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.
- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.
- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.
I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.
Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.
Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.
Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.
Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.
NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (PF, LD, CX, etc.):
-Include a value/criteria
-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)
-Communicate when you are using prep time
-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)
-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other team’s case substantively)
I will vote for the team that best upholds their side’s burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.
- pronouns: she/her
hii i'm anika! i'm currently a junion at san jose state majoring in business management. i did debate (parli only) all four years at washington high school and broke at a few tournaments such as Stanford and TOC:) i was an assistant coach at MVLA for 2 years as well!
some random things about my judging methods:
- content/ trigger warnings please. also please feel free to announce pronouns in the beginning of your speech/ the round if you are comfortable doing so!
- talk as fast as u need to but make sure you're breathing. i'll yell slow/ clear if need be and if the other team yells it more than 3 times & you don't stop, i'm receptive to theory arguments relating to speed.
- weighing is so so important to me. a good rebuttal is important and i really need there to be a clear analysis of how i need to vote or i will have to think a lot and i don't want to!!
- DO NOT be rude, bigoted, etc. if you are, i will stop the round, kill speaks, drop you, and/ or put in a formal complaint.
- case debate:
even with all the time i spent in debate, i've always preferred case debate over everything. just make sure to be organized and structured, make sure to sign post, have clear link stories, and terminalize your impacts!! try and have good evidence and warranting too if possible. the more interesting the argument the better, it'd just be more fun to listen to but generics are cool too if you really want/ need them for your strat.
when used right, theory is great. i liked theory in high school so i'll be responsive to theory arguments. fair warning: i am not a fan of friv T personally but if you run it and win on it, i'll vote for it. HOWEVER, i reserve the right to drop your speaks if you run friv t and the opposing team makes the argument that you were unfair/ creating an inaccessible round. basically, even if i have to vote for you on the argument, i still reserve the right to drop speaks.
rvis are cool.
have good interps pls, i struggled to come up with good interps for a while so i like seeing people do what i could not:D
PLEASE make sure that you weigh/ layer the theory against wtv else is in the round. don't make me have to think it all through and compare it for myself bc that means judge intervention and that's bad.
honestly, i've never run a K. i've watched rounds with Ks in them and have gone against a few but idk how confident you can feel in my K knowledge. with that being said, if you really want/ need to run a K, go for it. make sure it's clear, organized (if u don't sign post i WILL get lost i promise), and make sure your links are really strong and clear. if you're running something that gets really deep in philosophy, you need to do a very good job of explaining it and the connection to the round. PLEASE DO NOT USE Ks AS A TACTIC TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE OR GROUPS IN ROUNDS. basically don't be immoral.
overall, i know this isn't super in depth so if you have specific questions, feel free to ask them before the round begins!
HI, I am a parent judge. I have only judged for a little bit, so speaking clearly is important to me. Please explain your reasoning and I value main strong arguments over a bunch of small weaker ones. Last thing, have fun! Make sure you have a good time debating. Good luck!
I am a parent judge. Here are my preferences for the round.
-Avoid technical terms (like the TULI format). Instead, just guide me through your case and explain the points.
-Speak slowly. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow what you are saying and I will just end up ignoring what you said.
-Avoid running Theory or Ks. If you chose to, be as clear as possible or just explain it without the technical terms. Perms are 100% okay, but still explain without the technical terms.
-I will vote on whichever side provides the best logical arguments + warrants to back it up!
-Enjoy and Have Fun during the tournaments !
- Presentation High School - Class of 2015 - 3 years of LD Debate, 4 years of Speech
- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Class of 2019 - 2 years of Parli, LD, and Speech (Interp)
- I use they/them pronouns!
Things I Like
- Environmental & Systemic Impacts
- Plan-specific links, disads, and CPs
- Impact calculus that isn't just about magnitude
- Clever CX
- Clear roadmaps
- Good speaks
Things I Dislike
- Accidental racism, sexism, etc. that isn't corrected with an appropriate apology
- Men talking over female debaters
- Climate Change Denial
- Affs that aren't topical
- Avoiding clash in the debate
- Both debaters speaking during the same speech outside of prompting
Things That Will Cause You To Automatically Lose
- Any kind of harassment or intentional 'isms'
- Misgendering someone repeatedly
- Referring to undocumented immigrants as "illegals"
- Clipping cards, manufacturing evidence, or otherwise cheating
Cards should be used as logical support for your contentions. I especially respect empirical evidence and real-world examples. Evidence means nothing until you link it to your case and the resolution. Explain why the evidence brought up matters. For me, content is what counts. I am more likely to weigh evidence if the content is thoroughly covered and does have a fair impact in the round.
If you run T, do it right. T is a question of "is the aff topical." Break it down. Read cards on it. Do not use T as a time skew. If you choose to run T, make sure that you have a version of the aff that is topical.
I will vote on these if they are convincing and if legitimate and compelling evidence is used and explained to back up the argument. Simply make sure that they are actually competitive against the aff, and tell me why I should vote on it. As for the aff side, please explain why I should vote accordingly with your own evidence and reasoning.
If you use K, explain it as clearly as possible since K should never be used to make yourself, as a debater, sound more like a genius or to inflate your own ego; nor should it be used to force your opponent to respond to it even if it isn't topical (aka abusive argumentation).
If run and explained well, I will weigh it in the round. "Reject the argument, not the team" is generally sufficient, but I am familiar with some other theory if you decide to use it. That being said, still explain the theory as well as the reason why the theory argument applies; do not just name drop it or leave it underdeveloped.
Framework (Value and Value Criterion)
I love framework debate. Framework is fundamental in high school LD Debate, so while you read each contention, I expect you to outline a clear connections back to your value criterion as well as back to your value (like a link chain). Contentions should contain smaller arguments for why your V/VC is the most ideal/most pertinent/most important etc. Make your lines of reasoning explicit. I may have an idea as to where you're going with your thoughts, but I can't write down these said ideas if you don't fully elaborate on them yourself.
- I'm generally okay with some speed/spreading, but I'm a stickler for clarity. If you're going too fast, I will say "Clear" so you know that you have to slow down in order for me to follow the flow.
- Follow your roadmaps. If you have to divert, be clear about where you are going on the flow. Please verbally emphasize and tag your arguments/evidence. Also, I definitely appreciate when debaters "write the flow for me"/crystallize/discuss voting issues towards the end of the round.
- I use a standard speaks system. Speak up and enunciate, but don't yell. Unless you need a lot of improvement, I wont give you less than 26. If I give you anywhere between 26-28.5, I'll explain what you need to improve. To get 29-30: As I'm also a speechie, I'll admit that I'm 5% lay judge at heart, so I definitely value confident, straightforward, eloquent, succinct, expressive delivery.
- I'm open to any argument as long as it is not offensive.
- As always, be respectful towards your opponent. That being said, I do enjoy clash/if you are clever during CX. However, try not to be too smug. Channel your inner Spock (for Trekkies - I mean TOS Spock).
- If you have any questions about your case, high school/college debate in general, or want to talk about college life, feel free to find me at the tournament or email me! :)
I'm a parent judge who has been judging for around 3 years, but here are some of my preferences for the debate round.
- Please speak slowly and try to be as clear as possible so I can better comprehend what you are trying to say during your speech.
- Refrain from using acronyms and abbreviations during your speech
- Avoid running Ks
- Theory is fine but heads up I am not very familiar with it, so in the scenario, you run it makes sure you tell me why it is important in the round to avoid using the tech terms in the process for me to understand.
I will most likely give the vote to whichever side efficiently presents its case with logical arguments.
Hello all, I am a parent judge and enjoy judging all formats.
Please speak clearly and to the point. I can handle speed but would prefer that you not rush as I might miss the most impactful argument. I will prefer that you have valid arguments along with being good debtors. My decision will evaluate all scopes of the debate: framework, reasoning, arguments, evidence, etc. Ensure to drive home the point why your impacts are better achieved over your opponent.
- 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 am a parent judge.
-Avoid running Theory or Ks. If you chose to, be as clear as possible or just explain it without the technical terms.
-Make sure to signpost, and both sides should have offense as well as defense (if your case just has defense then I will prefer the opponent's case)
-Explain links clearly and include warrants to back it up!
-I will vote on whichever side provides the best logical arguments.
Lastly... make sure to have fun! (I don't mind a joke or two!)
(For email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org)
Background: I did college LD and Parli for two years but I'd like to stress I'm still developing as a judge. I'm familiar with a fair amount of debate concepts but I'm not an expert. Just putting that out there.
I'm a flow judge. You tell me to extend, I'll extend. Tell me to cross-apply, I'll cross-apply.
Overview: I prefer the debate to be about the resolution. I think no matter what kind of argument you want to run, it's a way for all of us to at least be on the same page.
Spreading/Presentation: For LD/policy, I'm fine with y'all spreading evidence so long as I have cards to look at (prefer speechdrop but can do email chain if it's necessary) and I can follow along. Parli, not so much. Would definitely prefer you not spread for either when it comes to analytics. I won't dock speaker points for this but please keep it in mind.
What I probably will give higher speaker points for (for those who care) is good presentation: pacing, voice inflection, staging/use of the room's space, etc.
Impacts: The debate for me comes down to impact calc. Telling a powerful story with your speeches is really important to me. I.e., what does your world look like at the end of the day and why should I care about it.
T's: I'm very much a topicality guy. Not strong on other theory/procedural arguments but you can bet I'll vote on a convincing T. As an English major, I love semantics debates and reasons to prefer one definition/interpretation over another. In the debate space, you can argue whatever you please so long as you tell me why it matters.
K's: I'm fine with Kritiks but please make them understandable and accessible to everyone in the room. If I look confused, it's because I'm not following your K. Make it organized, structured, and easy to follow. Go for the Alt and Impacts, compare to the Aff. Alt solvency and strong links are really important to me. For the ROB, explain clearly why my vote has an impact within and outside the round.
(Note: I'm not a fan of Critical Affs)
Signpost well and please make the flow organized as much as you can.
A final note: Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents in round. In my year of debating I met people I was happy to debate with and people who made the activity worse for me. Please do not be like the latter.
If you have any questions, let me know before the round starts. I'm happy to answer any to the best of my ability.
* note for TOC * judge paradigms that include things like "I will drop you if you run a kritik," you just don't want black, indigenous, and students of color to access this space and it shows.
Specifics for Parli:
I am the Head Coach of Parliamentary Debate at the Nueva School.
ON THE LAY VS. FLOW/ TECH FIGHT: Both Lay (Rhetorical, APDA, BP, Lay) and Tech (Flow, NPDA, Tech) can be called persuasive for different reasons. That is, the notion that Lay is persuasive and Tech is something else or tech is inherently exclusionary because it is too narrowly focused on the minutiae of arguments is frankly non-sense, irksome, and dismissive of those who don’t like what the accuser does. I think the mudslinging is counter-productive. Those who do debate and teach it are a community. I believe we ought to start acting like it. I have voted for tech teams over lay teams and lay teams over tech teams numerous times. One might say that I do both regularly. Both teams have the responsibility to persuade me. I have assumptions which are laid out in this paradigm. I am always happy to answer specific or broad questions before the round and I am certain that I ask each team if they would like to pose such questions before EVERY round. I do not want to hear complaints about arguments being inaccessible just because they are Ks or theoretical. Likewise, I do not want to hear complaints that just because a team didn’t structure their speeches in the Inherency, Link, Internal Link, Impact format those arguments shouldn’t be allowed in the round.
Resolution Complications: Parli is tough partly because it is hard to write hundreds of resolutions per year. A very small number of people do the bulk of this for the community, myself being one of them. I am sympathetic to both the debaters and the topic writers. If the resolution is skewed, the debater has to deal with the skew in some fashion. This can mean running theory or a K. It can also mean building a very narrow affirmative and going for high probability impacts or solvency and just winning that level of the debate. There are ways to win in most cases, I don’t believe that the Aff should be guaranteed all of the specific ground they could be. Often times these complaints are demands to debate what one is already familiar with and avoid the challenge of unexplored intellectual territory. Instead, skew should be treated as a strategic thinking challenge. I say this because I don’t have the power to change the resolution for you. My solution is to be generous to K Affs, Ks, and theory arguments if there is clear skew in one direction or another.
Tech over truth. I will not intervene. Consistent logic and completed arguments these are the things which are important to me. Rhetorical questions are neither warrants nor evidence. Ethos is great and I’ll mark you on the speaker points part of the ballot for that, but the debate will be won and lost on who did the better debating.
Evidence Complications: All evidence is non-verifiable in Parli. So, I can’t be sure if someone is being dishonest. I would not waste your time complaining about another teams’ evidence. I would just indict it and win the debate elsewhere on the flow. However, there are things that I can tell you aren’t good evidence: WIKIPEDIA, for example. Marking and naming the credentials of your sources is doable and I will listen to you.
Impacts are important and solvency is important. I think aff cases, CPs, Ks should have these things for me to vote on them. If the debate has gone poorly, I highly advise debaters to complete (terminalize) an impact argument. This will be the first place I go when I start evaluating after the debate. Likewise, inherency is important. If you don’t paint me a picture of a problem(s) that need solving, should I vote for you? No, I shouldn’t. Make sure you are doing the right sorts of storytelling to win the round.
If there is time, I ALWAYS give an oral RFD which teams are ALWAYS free to record unless I say otherwise. I will do my best to also provide written feedback, but my hope is that the recorded oral will be better. I do not disclose in prelims unless the tournament makes me.
My presumption is that theory comes first unless you tell me otherwise. I’m more than happy to vote on K Framework vs. Theory first debates in both directions.
I flow POI answers.
Basically, I will vote for anything if it’s a completed argument. But, I don’t like voting on technicalities. If your opponent clearly won the holistic flow, I’m not going to vote on a blippy extension that I don’t’ understand or couldn’t summarize back to you simply.
BE NICE AND PROFESSIONAL. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters WILL be punished on speaker points for being rude (beyond the normal flare of intense speeches) or abusive. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.
I’m more than happy to evaluate anything. I prefer education voters to fairness voters. It is “reject the argument” unless you tell me otherwise. Tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. I’m not confident most know what it means. So, I’m not going to guess. Theory should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I don’t like Friv-theory in principle although I will vote on it. I would vastly prefer links that are real, interps that are real, and a nuanced discussion of scenarios which bad norms create. Just saying “neg always loses” isn’t enough. Tell me why and how that would play out.
Delay CPs and Consult CPs are evil, but I will vote for them.
The CP needs to be actually competitive. You also need a clear CP text. Actual solvency arguments will be much rewarded and comparative solvency arguments between the CP and the Plan will be richly rewarded.
Uniqueness does actually matter. Simplicity is your friend. Signpost what is what and have legitimate links. Give me a clear internal link story. TERMINALIZE IMPACTS. This means someone has to die, be dehumanized, etc.. If the other team has terminalized impacts and you don’t, very often, you are going to lose.
I was a K debater in college, but I have come around to be more of a Case, DA, Theory coach. I also have a Ph.D in History and wrote a dissertation on the History of Capitalism. What does that mean? It means, I can understand your K and I am absolutely behind the specific sort of education that Ks provide. That being said a few caveats.
Out of round discussion is a false argument and I really don’t want to vote for it. Please don’t make me.
Performances are totally fine and encouraged. But, they had better be real. Being in the round talking isn’t enough, you need warrants as to why the specific discussion we are having in the debate on XYZ topic is uniquely fruitful. Personal narratives are fine. If you are going to speak in a language other than English, please provide warrants as to why that is productive for me AND your opponents. I speak Japanese, I will not flow arguments given in that language.
I would prefer that you actually have a rough understanding of what you are reading. I don't think you should get to win because you read the right buzzwords.
Alternatives need to be real. If they put offense on the Alt, you are stuck with that offense and have to answer it. Perms probably link into the K, please don’t make me vote for a bad perm.
I am less likely to vote against an aff on a K for something they might do. I am very likely to vote on rhetoric turns, i.e. stuff they did do. That is, if you are calling them racist and they say something racist, please point it out. Your impacts compete, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to answer their theory arguments or make your own. I would encourage you to show how your impacts compete pre- and post-fiat. Fiat isn’t illusory unless you make it so and extend it.
There is also a difference between calling the aff bad or it’s ideology bad and the debater a bad person. In general, debaters should proceed as if everyone is acting in good faith. That doesn’t mean that rhetoric links don’t function or that I won’t vote on the K if you accuse your opponent of promoting bad norms--intellectual, ideological, social, cultural, political, etc.. However, if one takes the pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the K seriously, Ks should not be used as a weapon of exclusion. No one has more of a right to debate than another. To argue otherwise is to weaponize the K. We want to exclude those norms and that knowledge which are violent and destructive to communities and individuals. We also probably want to exclude those who intentionally spread bad norms and ideology. However, I severely doubt that a 15-year-old in a high school debate round in 2022 is guaranteed to understand the full theoretical implications of a given K or their actions. As such, attacking the norms and ideology (e.g. the aff or res or debate) is a much better idea. It opens the door to educate others rather than just beating them. It creates healthy norms wherein we can become a stronger and more diverse community.
I love clean framework debates. I hate sloppy ones. If you are running a K, you probably need to put out a framework block. I would love to have that on a separate sheet of paper.
Links of omission are vexing. There is almost always a way to generate a link to your K based on something specifically in the aff case. Please put the work in on this front.
I love case debate, a lot. Terminal defense usually isn’t enough to win you the debate. But defensive arguments are necessary to build up offensive ones in many cases. Think hard about whether what you’re running as a DA might be better served as a single case turn. Please be organized. I flow top of case and the advantages on a separate sheet.
Specifics for Public Forum:
Please give me overviews and tell me what the most important arguments are in the round.
Unless we are in Finals or Semis, I'm not going to read your evidence. I'm evaluating the debate, not the research that you did before the debate. If the round is really tight and everyone did a good job, I am willing to use quality of evidence as a tie-breaker. However, in general, I'm not going to do the work for you by reading the evidence after the round. It's your responsibility to narrate what's going on for me and to collapse down appropriately so that you have time to do that. If you feel like you don't have time to tell me a complete story, especially on the impact level, you are probably going for too much.
I don't have strong opinions regarding whether you start refutation or defense in the second or third speech. However, if things are tight, I will reward consistent argumentation and denser argumentation. That means the earlier you start an argument in the debate, the higher the likelihood that I will vote on it. Brand new arguments in the 4th round of speeches are not going to get much weight.
Thresholds for voting on solvency:
PF has evidence and for good reason. But, that doesn't mean that you can just extend a few buzzwords on your case if you are going for solvency and win. You have to tell me what your key terms mean. I don't know what things like "inclusive growth" or "economic equity" or "social justice" mean in the context of your case unless you tell me. You have 4 speeches to give me these definitions. Take the time to spell this stuff out. Probably best to do this in the first speech. Remember, I'm not going to read your evidence after the round except in extreme circumstances and even then...don't count on it. So, you need to tell me what the world looks like if I vote Pro or Con both in terms of good and bad outcomes.
I haven't come across any theory in PF yet that made any sense. I'm experienced in theory for Policy and Parli. If there are unique variations of theory for PF, take the time to explain them to me.
There isn't really enough speaking time to properly develop a fleshed out K in PF. However, I would be more than happen to just vote on impact turns like Cap Bad, for example. If you want to run K arguments, I would encourage you to do things of that sort rather than a fully shelled out K.
Specifics for Circuit Policy:
Evidence: I'm not going to read your cards, it's on you to read them clearly enough for me to understand them. You need to extend specific warrants from the cards and tell me what they say. Blippy extensions of tag lines aren't enough to get access to cards.
Go nuts. I can keep up with any speed as long as you are clear.
For all other issues see my parli paradigm, it's probably going to give you whatever you want to know.
Specifics for Lay Policy:
I do not understand the norm distinctions between what you do and circuit policy.
As such, I'm going to judge your rounds just like I would any Policy round --> Evidence matters, offense matters more than defense, rhetoric doesn't matter much. Rhetorical questions or other forms of unwarranted analysis will not be flowed. You need to extend arguments and explain them. If you have specific questions, please ask.
I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging.
Few things that influence my judging :
1) Provide reasoning for your claims and support them with evidence.
2) I like to see how effectively the team was able to present the arguments and tackle each point presented by the opposing team.
3) Most IMPORTANT, Speak clearly and slowly, if you are too fast, no matter how good your arguments are, if I cannot follow, I cannot award points.
Has experienced judging both speech and debate events.
Like to see eye contact, clear tone and confident moments.
I'm a parent judge. I've judged a few rounds, but very much a novice. Please speak at a speed at which I can understand well and keep your jargons to a minimum
My criteria for judging are:
- I'm persuaded by clear, organized arguments
- support with data and other evidences
- I will not tolerate rude, racist, or sexist behavior in the round. If I see any of these, I will give you a loss.
tl;dr: I'm voting on the flow, tell me exactly what I should vote and evaluate.
Hi, I'm Leo, a senior in High School. I've been competing in speech and debate for ~4 years now and taught/coached public speaking and debate for around 3 years.
Flow/Impact Weighing: I try my absolute best not to fill in any blanks during the debate. If you do not explain the impacts or significance of your contentions, I will have no reason to vote for them. Please do impact weighing at some point during the round so I know which side to prefer, do not expect me to do impact weighing for you.
Signposting: Please have brief taglines for your arguments, I can't vote on an argument if I don't know what to call it, where it fits, or why it matters.
Evidence: I will weigh both cited evidence with logic and reasoning, but I will always prefer cited evidence.
Theory/Kritik: I am ok with T&K, I will buy into them if you explain them well. Make sure to explain the significance of your T or K and why I should prefer T or K or else I will not vote for it. I dislike abuse of power when running K or T. If you run K or T against a newer team that does not understand K or T and do not give them an understanding of your T or K, I will still probably vote for you but give you very low speaker points. In the same sense, if you run a T or K shell in your first speech and drop it mid-round, I very much will dislike it but I will not vote against it unless the other team runs T. Again, if you do this, I will drop your speaker points.
Speed: Overall I do not like speed. I see no benefit in spreading and am inexperienced with very fast spreading. If the other team runs spreading T and uneven grounds, I probably will buy it. If they do not call spreading out, I will not vote on it but I might drop speaker points.
New Points: I will try not to buy new arguments in the rebuttal speeches on purpose, but I still expect a POO from OPP.
Timing:Time yourselves and time your opponents. I don't mind if you are slightly under or over time, but be sure to make sure it's not abusive. Call your opponents on time abuses if they are happening.
I will give 30 speaker points if you use a Taylor Swift song title in your speech.
Have fun, and be respectful to all!
I started judging this year 2022. Speaking fast is ok, but please speak and explain clearly. Also please be respectful during the debate.
I'm a traditional judge.
4yrs LD Experience 2 Years Varsity
Speak Clearly and I would prefer if you don't SPREAD (I'll tank your speaks).
Clash a lot
Make sure to say why I should prefer your value over the opponent and to really emphasize this. The framework is very important when I take into account everything to vote for. The framework tells me what I should value most. If you have identical values, just say " I agree with my opponent." At the end of the round, I'll start weighing arguments based on how well they achieve their value. Or if you were to tell me to prefer prob > magnitude then I'll give priority to prob arguments in the round and give the round to the debater who showed him impacts are more likely to happen. Of course, I want solid justifications for this - you cant tell me to prefer prob over the magnitude and not explain the reasoning. I won't do the legwork for you
Make sure to weigh your impacts and extend them throughout the round. The argument has to appear in all your speeches and I won't take into account an argument that you dropped in the 1AR but bring back in the 2AR.
I am very a traditional judge, No k's, theories, and etc.
Edit: 2021: I haven't participated in LD Debate in about 2 years — will certainly be slightly rusty.
The following is written by my son but he just rephrased my opinions in a more understandable way
This is my 3rd year judging debate so not a lot of experience
State your sources, evidence, impacts, harms, etc in a clear and understandable way
Pretend I do not know anything about any topic, so explain everything!
Go slow and focus on getting your message out in a clear way
No K's or Theory, I do not understand them (sorry)
Be nice and polite, you are here to debate an educational round, not to dog fight with each other
Don't interrupt unless it is a clarification/POI
Overall have fun and enjoy the round!
Updated September 2021
I am a parent judge and it is my second year judging (mostly Parli). Having judged at least a dozen tournaments, I am comfortable with terminology and have heard a variety of styles and strategies. That said,
1. Please signpost - it helps me organize my notes and make a decision
2. No spreading if possible, I have trouble flowing when you speak fast
3. You can use theory but it has to be well explained.
I am currently a Policy Debater at Gonzaga University and am coaching at Niles West High School
Yes email chain - email@example.com
Time yourself and time your opponents
I have experience with most types of arguments but don't assume I have read your author/lit already. Explain your theory/complex legal args in language that is understandable
Impact calc wins rounds
speed is fine but outside of policy it's cringe
Tech over truth within reason (ie a dropped arg with no warrant or impact doesnt matter)
I don't care at all what you say and will vote on anything that is not immediately and obviously violent
Not a fan of the super-aggressive debate style
Profanity should generally be avoided it comes off as awkward and cringe 99.9% of the time
I tend to look at T stuff through a lens that is sympathetic to the neg
That said I think a lot of counter interps are pretty limiting and unconvincing/self serving
Going for T doesnt mean you cant extend a case turn youre winning
I have read both policy and K affs but recently have been reading majorly critical arguments
Debating about debate is cool but if it is distracting from x scholarship it is less cool
Bad K affs are not cool but good K affs are cool
I lean neg on framework. That said if a K aff sufficiently answers/turns FW I have no problem voting aff. I find this specifically true when the 1AC has built-in or at least inferential answers to fw that they can deploy offensively
Debate bad as an argument is not convincing to me, we are all here by free will and we all love debate or at the very least think it is a good academic activity
Switch side debate probably solves your impact turn to framework
K affs that don't address the resolution/stem from topic research are not good
Theory is good.
If you read like 6 reasons to reject the team I think some warrants are necessary. ex:"Reject the team, utopian fiat bad" is not an argument
If you are going to go for a theory arg in a final rebuttal ensure your partner extended it substantially enough for you to have adequate arguments to go for or give a nuanced speech on the specific args extended by your partner - generalized rebuttals on theory are bad. At the same time I am cool with hailmary rebuttals on theory because you are getting destroyed in every other part of the debate
I tend to lean neg on condo stuff but not by much
Will vote on perf con
Dont read your theory args at 2 million wpm
Bonus points for contextualizing your theory args to the round they are being deployed in
If you want to go for theory spend more than 7 seconds on it when you are first deploying the argument
Cool with a 1 off and case strat
Kritiks are cool
Vague alts are annoying and if I cant understand how the alt solves case and you don't have good case D I am gonna have a tough time voting neg unless the link debate implicates that (and is articulated)
Explain links in clear terms and be specific to the aff you are hitting. Specific links are better than generic like state bad links but if you have a generic link please explain to me how the aff uniquely makes the situation WORSE not just that it doesnt make it better - these are different things
I am totally cool with performance and love me some affect but if you are reading cards about how performance is key to X and your whole "performance" is playing like 10 seconds of a song before your 1AC and you don't reference it again then I am cool voting neg on "even if performance is good yall's was trash" (assuming this arg is made lol)
Winning FW is huge but you still need to leverage it as a reason for me to vote on X
CPs are great but 10 plank conditional counterplans are kinda silly.
2nc CPs (or CP amendments) are lit
DAs are awesome and CP DA strat is a classic
UQ is extremely important to me. A lot of links are ignorant to UQ so explain the link in the context of the UQ you are reading
Explain your impact scenario clearly - bad internal links to terminal impacts r crazzzzzy
I did PF in HS but it was trad so I am likely going to evaluate the round through a policy lens.
Will vote on theory
Cool with K stuff
Pretty much same as PF - never did LD but I have judged it a ton so I will likely judge how you instruct me to but default to a policy lens.
Debate is hard and stressful but relax and be confident and have fun!
Feel free to email me with any questions firstname.lastname@example.org
Firstly - please do not spread: debate is for education and logic, speaking fast not only doesn't enhance that, but may detriment what education can be produced for both sides. I would prefer you speak slower as that gives both me and the opponents a deeper understanding of what you are truly saying.
In terms of other delivery, use proper articulation, tone, and I take into consideration a large amount of delivery skills such as nonverbal body language and tone (especially in speaker points).
I feel the need to put the disclaimer that I have trouble buying K's, as I was not extremely well-versed in kritikal debate, especially as it is something arguably more recently surfaced.
With this being said, I understand that kritikal arguments are a mechanism for debaters to spread these advocacies, however, I may not understand this post-fiat advocacy enough to have a crystal clear ballot, which makes voting quite hard.
Kritikal arguments are on one spectrum of technical arguments that I may not know well enough about to buy (as once again, K's were never a thing back then, and have become more usable after the pandemic, etc. so I am still learning), and am not likely to buy it under these given circumstances.
Some other tech args that fall along the same lines of the ["please don't run, I will not understand/buy and it will only frustrate you"] radar are things like Friv T, which is very harmful to real education and ends up becoming annoying. In general anything that seems "quirky" and reflects in opposition to more traditional Parliamentary formats will be looked down upon. So once again, please do not run them as I will be very saddened, and refer to using the fundamental debate structure as the AFF/NEG.
I will protect the debate space first and foremost. Do NOT use personal attacks, homophobia, racism, misgendering, transphobia, etc. as there is 0 tolerance for this especially in the debate space where we are here to learn. I won't regulate how you choose to debate as long as debaters handle themselves accordingly with reason to rules, speech time (including grace period within reason), respect, etc. but if blatant violations occur or are brought up, I will step in.
Please adhere to well-delivered, logically sound arguments, clash, and impacts and evidence that are reasonable, warranted, and supported. Arguments are meant to make sense. Don't say a bunch of evidence with no purpose or logic to analyze and tie it back, after all, although numbers may sound good, if there is no real argument, it's much easier for me to rely on analytics that truly are well-explained and link chains that make sense.
I am tabula rasa, meaning that I will not produce exterior knowledge or factor-in outside opinions when making my ballot. At the end of the day, I will flow what you and the opponents tell me, and how you clash, rather than my own opinions (no matter if I agree or disagree).
I evaluate arguments partially on their presentation and how they are delivered, but also the ways they are explained and logically backed upwith evidence and analysis.
Clash is vital, as that is where we can learn and discuss, so please use your ground and weigh clash and impacts. At the end of the day I shouldn't have to guess or gamble who wins the round, you should be using proper impact calculus and weighing of impacts to tell me why/who wins. With that being said, I expect debaters to warrant their evidence and actually explain it in their constructive, or in rebuttal when refuting. In addition, please signpost clearly, it makes flowing and understanding your points much easier.
In terms of framework, there are tight burdens to ensure AFF has set topical, reasonable, and agreed upon framework. If you fail the burden of framework as the AFF, it will make it very difficult to regain feasible ideas of your advocacy, as your side, as well as the entire round, is lacking any real image, weather it be a lack of definitions, clarity, weighing, plan (and plan specifications such as timeframe), etc. Once again, because I try to be tabula rasa, losing framework basically makes me unable to evaluate the following speeches properly or until framework is set.
In terms of counterplans, I find some CPs to be slightly confusing especially depending on the context of the round (or if the round is loaded with more niche topics). With that being said, you can still run a CP, just at your own risk. My largest requirement for a CP is that it has to be very very well explained, given all the framework and elements that I would expect from the AFF, presented in the first NEG speech, and must be shown to pass the test of perm to be both better and competitive.
I am also aware that PIC's are a form of CP's, however, many debaters fail to distinguish to two well, making them more confusing. At the end of the day, if you can explain them well, I will try my best to evaluate them, however, if I am left confused and to guess the perm, then I will be discouraged from voting for it (given that the AFF has substantial points against it). Once again, I don't want to have to "guess" who wins, so the same applies for any CP advocacy.
Finally, if you have any questions about my paradigm, other things that were not explicitly listed under this paradigm, or just questions in general, feel free to ask before the round (in reasonable time)! I will try my best to answer all questions.
Lastly, debate is a very prestigious art and sport, so despite being caught up with all the chains and dedications of it, don't forget to have fun! Good luck all.
I am a parent judge with no debate judging experience. Please talk slowly and make your logic and argument clear.
I have had no prior speech and debate experience.
Hi! I'm Anping (he/him), a senior at the Nueva School. I have been debating (Parli) for about one year.
IMPACTS ???????? -inspired by sava
Friv theory only when opponents know how to respond (ergonomics theory????♂️????!!)
Ks if they are not meant to exclude.
speaks are not real ???? 29 by default but
+0.5 if you make me laugh
+0.3 for walking into the room with gusto
+0.1 for staying hydrated
Finally, we're all here to learn and have fun, so if you do anything to prevent that then expect to be punished in speaks/ballot if not both ????
A Frogeel is a hybrid of a Giant frog and a Raw cave eel. Players can create frogeels in Creature Creation, in the basement dungeon of the Tower of Life building once they complete the Tower of Life quest.
A frogeel is created by a player using one pair of Giant frog legs and a Raw cave eel on the Western frogeel altar of life in the dungeon and then activating the altar (found in the west part of the basement). The Homunculus in the dungeon then creates the monster, which appears near the altar and will attack the player.
I prefer that you avoid spreading. Quality over quantity. Spreading causes confusion and missed arguments and is not a skill that you can use in real life.