Updated 3/26 for ToC 2023 :)

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Hi all! I competed for all four years in high school for Claremont HS. My main events were Parliamentary Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking, although I occasionally did Worlds Schools and Congressional. I was a two-time NPDL TOC Qualifier (ending 6th and 5th overall in terms of points), a four-time state qualifier in IX, and a four-time national qualifier in IX (semifinalist at Nats 2020). I currently debate APDA and BP Debate BP for Yale and was the TD for the 2022 Yale Invitational. I've judged a lot, including TOC 2022 Semifinals and Finals. Feel free to email me @ alex.abarca@yale.edu with any questions regarding this paradigm or debate in general, primarily if you identify as a first-generation, low-income, or Latinx student!

I consider myself a traditional judge because I care more about the pedagogical nature of the debate over tricks or theories that could be used to win a debate round. I disagree that debate is a "game" that can be won via any means. Unless the theory argument is well warranted and links back into the round, it’s unlikely I will vote for you. If you feel that theory is warranted in the round, feel free to run whatever you think is necessary to check against abusive arguments or problematic statements.

As a brief note: I've judged a lot more than my judge record states (most of the tournaments I've judged at have been on discord and hence, aren't recorded here), so if that's something that matters to you, I hope that helps you make an informed decision (for NPDL-TOC). If you care about my competitive record, I top spoke at Jack Howe (2019, Varsity Parli), won Stanford (2020 Varsity Parli), League Champion (2019), finaled at SCU Dempsey Cronin (2018), etc. I was successful both at lay and flow debate.

tl;dr (For Parliamentary Debate)

Avoid speed and jargon; in rebuttal speeches, focus on fewer arguments and develop them rather than trying to win everything. Connect your arguments to the resolution and, where appropriate, to the standard for judging the round and definitions of key terms. Unreceptive to kritiks or theory unless they are being well-executed and, more importantly, warranted in the round.

Accessibility/ Inclusivity Statements:

If you feel comfortable stating your pronouns, I encourage doing so! Purposefully misgendering someone is grounds for dropping you. The debate is meant to be inclusive, please always aim to create an inclusive environment. The same principle goes for harassment. Competitiveness is excellent until it isn't. There's a distinction between passionate and rude. Rude and aggressive behavior will tank your speaks.

Please be wary when constructing problematic statements. In addition, please list content warnings before any speech to prevent triggering someone in the round. Do not make harmful generalizations about people; I will punish your speaks, and if called out by the other team appropriately, will justify me dropping you.

If there are any accommodations you'd like me to make, I'd be happy to do so, given that the tournament allows me to! I will always disclose and aim to provide as much feedback as possible. If I cannot do so, given policies or time constraints, I'll always leave comments/RFDs in the comments and individual feedback. Please reach out if you have any questions!

General Debate Things

Theoretical Paradigm:

I believe that the "Tabula Rasa" principle is impossible. We all have ideologies and beliefs that we follow or practice daily (my writing this paradigm is an example). That being said, I aspire to be as Tabula Rasa as possible and always make decisions on the flow. While on the flow topic, please call out any new points raised in the rebuttal speeches; while I try to protect the flow, this helps me.

Parliamentary Debate

Argumentation:

Use solid logic when constructing arguments. Use clear warrants and clever argumentation to create lines of reasoning that make verifying the substance of any specific contention easy. My favorite aspect of Parli was always coming up with exciting assertions (especially on the negation side), so props to you if you can come up with some unique ideas. As for the structure of the argument, do whatever you feel comfortable doing. Being adaptable is a big part of this debate, so do whatever is necessary to make your case as tight as possible.

Links are key. Tell me how and why whatever contention you gave me links back to your plan/cp/case/position. Link chains are essential, and I won't create the link chain for you. Also, keep in mind that the link should fit the impact. If you want to sell me on that extinction impact, you'll have to sell me on that link story.

Organization:

Signpost, read taglines more slowly, read plan/cp twice or more slowly than the rest of your speech, and give a roadmap. When constructing arguments, clearly map out whatever structure you're using. When refuting, use on-case/off-case terminology to make my life (and flow) a bit easier. I will avoid non-verbal feedback, but my resting face can generally looks confused.

Framework:

Provide a WM or V/VC. Tie this back to each of your contentions/arguments. Give definitions that are fair and set parameters for the round in general. Please have a clear framework; at many of the recent tournaments I've judged, there has been gross underdevelopment and utilization of weighing mechanisms. If you're in a value round, have a clear value and value criterion via which I can evaluate the round. Without precise framing and weighing, I will start making personal decisions on the relative importance of arguments external to the flow, which a) I hate and b) you will probably hate that too.

Speed:

I can handle speed, maybe not full-on spreading, but so long as you remain coherent, I’ll be fine. I’ll be flowing on my laptop.

If you use speed to outspread someone in a round, this will tank your speaker scores. Furthermore, I am especially receptive to any speed theory the other team might run, so please keep that in mind. Call out "speed" if your opponents are outspreading you.

Speaker Scores:

They start at 28 and go either up or down from there. Strong argumentation and strong speaking will warrant higher speaker scores. Worse argumentation and weaker speaking will warrant lower speaker scores. I use a blend of both because I feel that debate has a "speech" component, and to ignore that is to ignore a massive part of why we do this event in general.

Counterplans and DisAds:

Love them. Use them. Please make unique links between the Disad and the case, however. Generic disads are boring and show a need for more creativity.

Theory:

I have no issue listening to a theory-based debate if the theory is warranted. If you believe that you are being excluded from the round, have no room to debate the resolution, or if there are legitimate ties between the aff's case and some theoretical framework, I'm down to hear some theory, as long as it's not frivolous.

I hate theory that is run simply for the reason you want to. Don't run Ks because of a "why not" mentality. I was not a K debater, so if you decide to run a K, please explain the logic clearly.

As for the voters that I am most receptive to, fairness and education are the main ones. Please explicitly give the links between the standards/violations and the impacts of said violations. I refuse to intervene as much as possible and will NOT make those links for you. The same goes for the impacts themselves.

It goes without saying, but if the theory is the "a priori" issue that both teams agree upon, I will be tech over truth.

Weighing/Decision:

I love the rebuttal speeches. Carefully collapse onto the most impactful/substantive arguments in that given round. Tell me explicitly WHY something should be the number one issue and back it up with logic. Give the impacts RELATIVE to either the SQ and/or the negation's case (or CP). Impacts don't exist in a vacuum, and once again, I will not make those links/comparative analyses for you.

If the round does end up being a complete coin toss (this applies to Policy/Plan Motion Rounds only), the presumption will flow neg unless the negation has a CP, in which case the presumption flows aff.

Hi! I am an experienced BP debater with plenty of competing under my belt but I am relatively new to judging. I am currently a student at UC Berkeley and frequent tournaments as part of the Berkeley Debate Society.

I appreciate a very crystal clear speech with signposting and minimal ‘flowery’ language. A good argument should be simple enough to be understood by the average person so do include clear definitions and models. It should be obvious that teammates are working with each other and that a bigger cohesive picture can be seen after both speakers are done.

I do not prefer super fast speakers and people that have impetuous or condescending attitudes. There will be zero tolerance for any sort of bigotry and I expect pronouns to be clearly indicated and respected. We do not want a hostile environment.

When it comes to the actual material of your arguments, I will be taking a tabula rasa approach and voting, as expected, for whichever team can best tell me what the issue is and why I should listen to their arguments above everyone else. I will be looking favourably at debaters that both offer and take a reasonable number (ie do not interrupt every two seconds and keep it under five) of POIs and will be considering it as a sign of them further engaging with the debate.

I'm a flow judge and have debated 4 years of PF at Trinity School. Broke to dubs at TOC '21.

Defense is not sticky - if you want defense to flow through, you need to extend it in every speech. That said, if first summary extends defense that wasn't frontlined in second rebuttal, second summary is too late to bring up a new frontline.

Screaming "Smith 18" is not an extension. If you want me to vote on something, you need to extend the warranting as well as the evidence.

I don't flow cross - if something important is said during cross, make sure to bring it up in a later speech.

Talk as fast as you want as long as you're clear (but I find that when people talk fast, their warranting suffers; I will not vote off blippy warranting).

No theory unless you actually, genuinely care about the issue (see TOC finals 2021 for a good example).

Bonus points for any jokes made during speeches :)

I have done Parli since elementary school here are some of my accomplishments:

1-4 at Steven Stewart, 1-4 at Nueva.

On another note, I have broken to Octos three times, got 5th place at Georgetown (APDA circuit), and made it to finals at Claremont.

Judging Style: First and foremost I can only judge what is said in the round. This means that you will not win by implying something, you should try and explicitly say it. Second, I will generally default to the easiest path to the ballot. That just means that you need to make sure all of your impacts are clearly warranted and crystalized. Impacts are what win you the round, not claims. I believe debate is supposed to be an educational exercise at its core. Given this, I do consider the truthfulness of arguments as well as their logical structure. When it comes to evidence, analytical is always best. Anyone can make up a statistic. I don't want to just hear numbers, explain why they matter and present logical reasoning for why the numbers are like that (ie. 50,000 people died, why did they die? hmmm maybe because they lacked access to adequate health care, but why is that the most probable reason for their death? etc.).

In addition, impacts should be clearly weighed. If you don't give me clear reasons to prefer one impact over another, I will have to evaluate based on other factors. Unless told otherwise, I will generally default to probability > magnitude > timeframe > flashpoint > structural, but depending on the topic/scope of topic this might change (ie. a topic about climate change will probably have me prioritizing magnitude impacts above probability). Thus please make sure to properly weigh impacts if you believe they should be prioritized in a certain way.

When evaluating competing claims I will choose the one which is more warranted. If both claims are equally warranted (or unwarranted) I will have to decide using logic.

I will buy theory but my threshold is very high, there should be clear proven abuse (I will usually NOT buy frivolous theory shells unless they are interesting, clever, and/or unique). In addition, theory doesn't have to be structured in order to be effective. While shell format is nice, I will still buy any theory arguments as long as they are logical and address clear abuse.

Feel free to run Ks as long as they genuinely seek to address a valid issue within the debate space (doesn't have to be topic specific if you can find a creative way). If not, I will not vote for them.

I judge based on how well a speech advances or proposes a philosophy. While arguments are valuable tools to when arguing a case and you will get points for this, it can be helpful to control a debate with framing of values, such that end round arguments can be coalesced into a compelling narrative.

Elisa Batista is a writer, activist, and proud mom of a high school debater in Berkeley, California. She used to be a policy debater back in the 1990s at Londonderry High School in Londonderry, New Hampshire. She credits her experiences as a high school debater to fruitful careers in journalism and now political strategy and community organizing.

Her judging preferences:

• No spreading or speed-reading.

• Use all time allotted to carefully build on your arguments and counter all of your opposition's arguments.

• Start all speeches with a roadmap: Definitions, contentions, rebuttals, and framework or weighing mechanisms for the debate.

• All POIs should be verbal and judge encourages debaters to take them at some point during their speech.

• Be cognizant of introducing new arguments at the end of the debate. Judge is pretty good at picking up on these and will award extra points to debaters who successfully point them out as well!

• This judge enjoys taking detailed notes--"flowing"--the rounds, and is happy to give oral feedback at the end of the debate.

• Judge does not disclose ballot decision, unless it's the last round and inconsequential in terms of debaters' morale.

• High school debaters are awesome and judge wants to see them keep at it! Good luck!

I am a parent judge. If you spread and do not sufficiently explain arguments or overuse jargon I am not familiar with, I cannot and will not vote for you. If both teams spread, the round is incomprehensible and virtually all I will be able to do is a flip a coin. Explain arguments in depth and at a reasonable speed and you will not have any issues.

TL;DR - tech>truth, clarity in thoughts and in speech (do not spread), be logical in linkchains and among your arguments, weigh, no theory, K, etc.

Although I am a parent judge, this is my eighth year judging debate tournaments, so I am not new to judging. I will flow arguments and will vote off of the flow (I'll mostly do tech > truth unless the arguement is so obviously false that nearly everyone would agree without googling it). That being said, please do not spread, because I'm bound to miss some of your arguments (if it doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't be able to evaluate your arguement). It is your job to make sure that you communicate your arguements clearly and logically.

Please note:

- clarity, especially clarity of thought and logic, is more important than speed

- I will focus on the weigh, and whether you've proven that your standing argument(s)'s impacts are greater than your opponents. This means that as you go through your arguments (before you weigh), you must tell me what the impacts of your arguments are-- don't assume they are obvious, and I'm not likely to make them up for you. You can be creative about how you weigh, potentially including scope, magnitude, timeframe, probabilty, or a metaweigh, etc.

- I do not like off-topic/theory arguements that try to disqualify the other team. Debate the topic at hand.

- I appreciate roadmaps and signposting. I'm OK if the initial roadmap is off-time, but they really should be part of your speaker time. And be sure to continue to signpost as you address new arguments-- you don't want me to put your arguments on a random part of my flowsheet.

- Gov/aff does have the right to define terms, and I do give leeway for that. Don't abuse it though-- I really don't like having to judge a "definitions" debate, and if the definition doesn't allow a path for opp/neg to win, I'm voting with opp/neg.

- Warrant your arguments. Completely unsubstantiated arguments are hard to vote on, especially if rebutted by the opposing side. If both sides are unwarranted, I'll view it as a wash and it won't survive the round.

- And to quote Ryan Lafferty: Be charitable to your opponents’ arguments! I’d much rather you mitigate the best version of your opponents’ claims than demolish a heavily strawmanned version of them.

For PF specifically:

- I value warrants over cards. Tell me why your argument(s) make sense logically rather than telling me a card said so. I have faith that you can always find someone who will say just about anything (e.g.-- the earth is flat).

- Focus on the weaknesses in your opponents link chains rather than reading from a prepared block file.

- The clash should be obvious by the rebuttal speaches. Second rebuttal can start to frontline in addition to rebutting the prior speech, however they must respond to all offense (including turns) or else I'll assume the argument is conceded.

- I won't be on your email chain and almost always wont look at your evidence. It's up to you to convince me, rather than me determining whether the evidence is worthy. That being said, if someone asks me to look at evidence (e.g., in order to determine whether the evidence was represented correctly), I will.

Speaker scores are ultimately subjective based on impefect judging. For PF, in addition to the above, I'll also be analyzing the quality of the research in determining speaker scores. For Parli, broad background knowledge is a big plus.

Experience: LD Debate 4 years in High School. Presently a coach for both speech and debate.

Paradigm: I try to avoid judge intervention as much as possible. Therefore I don't have any hard rules such as "voting on framework". It is up to the competitors to make well reasoned arguments why their arguments have priority on the ballot within the hierarchy of other arguments in the round.

This means that for an argument to make it to the ballot it must be fully supported throughout the round by the debater, cradle to grave. Extending arguments is very important, especially in the case of a dropped argument or a cross application.

Spreading: I generally don't like speed reading because it usually used at the expense of eloquence. However context is important so at circuit tournaments it might be acceptable if you really feel it is important to your round.

Finally, if something isn't read it doesn't go on the flow. For example, if you say "I have a card that proves this" but do not read that card, it will not go on the flow.

Hi! I'm Julia and I did parli for four years throughout high school and currently compete for my college parli team.

I prefer a style that emphasizes logic and thoughtfulness over tech. That said, I can keep up and flow with whichever style you choose, but please keep in mind that if you don't explain something to me I will not flow that to you. I'm not super into arguments that require a degree of judge intervention, rather I'd prefer if you explain and impact your arguments fully yourself.

Above all, please remain respectful towards your opponents, me, and the debate. Prejudiced behavior will not be tolerated.

I'm an experienced parent-judge and a former APDA debater at Harvard College. I have a fair amount of recent parli judging experience, including the finals of the 2019 NPDL ToC and the finals of the 2018 Stanford Invitational.

I track every argument carefully (in writing) and I take a tabula rasa approach — I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round. I do weigh arguments qualitatively, relying heavily on my judgment to assess competing positions; for me, one very strong argument can outweigh multiple weaker/mediocre ones. I vote for the side who is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful lay-people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Any decision involves tradeoffs; help me understand why your position should defeat their other side, despite (usually) there being considerable merit to many of the other side's arguments.

Theory. I'm not fluent in theory, so if you make theory arguments, you should explain them clearly and very thoughtfully. I prefer not to decide rounds on the basis of theory arguments, and I generally will weigh theory heavily only when one side (or both sides) are being clearly abusive in some way (e.g., arguing a truism; ignoring or unfairly interpreting the resolution; making offensive arguments against marginalized groups).

Kritiks. I don't like kritiks, although I understand why proponents like them. Consistent with my view on theory generally, I strongly prefer that kritik arguments only be made in rounds where the other side is being obviously abusive. In general, I prefer that each side accept the resolution largely as-is and argue it straight up.

Speed. I'm not comfortable with high-speed speeches. I find it difficult to keep track of arguments when someone is talking much faster than a person typically talks when trying to convince someone of something in the real world.

Complexity of arguments. I have a lot of interests in the outside world and I'm open to complex arguments about nearly any topic, including economics, politics, international relations, foreign policy, business, technology, psychology, and pop culture. I'm a longtime participant in the technology industry, and I enjoy complicated tech-related arguments.

Value and fact rounds. I enjoy value and fact rounds, so I don't want them to be converted into policy rounds.

Tag teaming. Tag teaming is fine.

Hi everyone! I'm so excited to judge you this year at TOC. To summarize: run whatever you want (as long as you're not excluding your opponents) and make sure to crystallize and weigh your arguments.

About me:
I went to middle school and high school at the Nueva School and I’m a freshman at Harvard College. I competed for the Menlo-Atherton parli debate team for six years and have done a bit of college APDA debate at Harvard. In high school, I won the parli TOC in 2021 and was #1 in the U.S. for parli debate from 2019-2021 (my sophomore and junior year). I did both lay and tech debate (e.g., winning both the Yale Tournament and NPDI). In college, I study Government and Economics and read a lot about modern politics and global history.

How I judge:

I flow carefully and am tabula rasa. I don't consider any arguments unless they are raised in the round and don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round. I vote for the side that is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Any decision involves tradeoffs; help me understand why your position should defeat the other side, despite (usually) there being considerable merit to many of the other side's arguments. My #1 piece of advice is for rebuttal speeches: highlight the most important issues in the debate, why you are winning them (or some of them), and why your impacts outweigh the other side's.

(some of this section is lifted from Marc Bodnick’s paradigm)

Tech debate:

I am familiar with speed and technical arguments (theory, kritiks, framework arguments, etc.) from high school debate. I’ve run these arguments and debated against them, so feel free to run whatever you want. I will flow you carefully and prioritize tech over truth. However, I think tech debate should not be used as a tool of exclusion, so please don’t spread if your opponents can’t follow your speech or run kritiks on teams that are completely unfamiliar with this style of argument.

Hello reader, my name is Joel Brown (he/him/his)!

I competed in Policy and Parli on a very lay circuit in high school, and then I competed in Parli and LD in college at Chabot College and at the University of the Pacific. I was also an assistant Parli coach at Washington High School for a year. Altogether, I have a fair amount of experience with policy-style debate.

I try to be impartial about what arguments or strategies you choose to deploy in the round, but I do care that you deploy them well - provide warrants for your arguments, and provide clear decision calculus in the rebuttals. Specifically, don't just link your arguments to x impact, there needs to be an explicit weighing of the impacts in the round.

I'm able to keep up with spreading for the most part, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed as this often impacts your argument quality and consequently your speaker points too.

I'm game for theory debate, but I expect a clear abuse story outlined in the standards that relate to your impacts in the context of the round. I'm not predisposed to either proven or potential abuse threshold, as both have real impacts - hash out the threshold question in the round and then explain your abuse story from there.

Disad/Counterplan debates are also a great option - go with whatever you think fits the round best or what you're most comfortable with. All counterplans MUST be functionally mutually exclusive with the plan or else the perm is terminal defense that I will vote on as the easiest out in the round.

I also think case debate has become something of a lost art, meaning that you can win terminal defense in front of me so long as you frame it correctly and pair it with turns. When it comes to case debate, I won't automatically vote on a risk of offense if that offense is predicated on a claim with missing/dubious warrants.

I frequently ran kritiks as a competitor and I enjoy judging rounds where critical arguments are made on either side, but that doesn't mean I automatically know the lit base you're citing inside and out - my flow benefits from 1) slowing down when introducing your thesis and/or framework at the top 2) presenting a well-developed link story that indicts the specific actions of your opponents case 3) explaining how your alt solves the K per the framework. I am most familiar with critical arguments pertaining to capitalism, race, gender, colonialism, biopower, and the environment. I am less well-versed in other literature, but I can usually track a well-explained and cohesive thesis for the most part.

Round vision is key to wining in front of me - PLEASE COLLAPSE IN THE BLOCK/PMR OR ELSE IT BECOMES OBJECTIVELY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU. It is both easier and more compelling for me to vote for the team that identifies and collapses to a few points of key offense than for the team that keeps doing line-by-line in the rebuttals without providing coherent impact calculus.

Feel free to ask any further questions before the round!

Hi I am Rosie (she/her). I did American parli debate at Berkeley High School for three years and I won the 2022 TOC. I now do IPDA debate at UC Santa Barbara.

Preface: I want my paradigm to be accessible to people who don't know debate language. If you are confused about anything I have written please ask me to clarify. I remember being very confused reading paradigms--I still am sometimes--so please, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. At the bottom of my paradigm I have linked a document that I wrote going over the basics of some of the debate terminology I have used. I have also included my email if you want to talk personally.

The short version: not a super technical debater/judge, but mostly tabula rasa; explain things to me don't just cite evidence; tag teaming is fine, but don't be excessive; don't speak quickly; take POIs but I don't care a ton. I'll vote against you for abusive definitions.

Long(ish) version:

My preferences are pretty simple: I enjoy case debate with good reasoning. I do not enjoy theory. I like voting issues in rebuttal--tell me what the most important issue in the round is and why.

Tabula rasa

I guess one could call me tabula rasa (meaning I pretend I know absolutely nothing about the world at the start of your round). However, if someone says something absurd, and you give a two second reason for why it is absurd, I'll believe you. That being said, don't expect me to do the work for you if your opponent lies or makes a large leap in logic.

Evidence

Evidence in parli is easily misrepresented or straight up lied about. Statistics should support your argument, not be your argument's backbone. I will be hesitant to decide a round based on one statistic or piece of evidence. If you want me to weigh your evidence more, provide details (AT LEAST source, date of publication, author. If it is a poll, number of people surveyed, who was surveyed etc.). Also, if you think a statistic is suspicious don't be afraid to call it out, tell me why I shouldn't trust it.

Counter plans

Counter plans are fun. I don't need plans to be mutually exclusive, but I will vote on arguments saying all counter plans should be. Run them if you wish!

Jargon

Do not expect your opponents to have read the same literature that you have. Don't expect me to have read the literature that you have. All jargon should be explained, even jargon as simple as "utilitarianism." If you are using a lot of jargon and don't take POIs it will be hard to win my ballot. Also, if your opponents use too much jargon, please POI them and call them out for making the round hard for you to debate.

Theory

I know some people can be unfair so run theory if you need to. I wouldn't use theory as your primary path to the ballot if you can avoid it. That means if your opponents don't state a weighing mechanism, you are better off giving me one yourself than telling me to vote against them because they didn't. Attack the plan/weighing mechanism/etc. only when you can genuinely prove it has made the debate less fair or educational. Also, as long as you get the point across, I don't care if you run theory in a proper shell or not.

Kritiks

I don't like them very much. Only run when abundantly necessary. If your opponents tell me that Ks are bad I will be inclined to believe them.

Don't spread and have fun everyone! I look forward to judging you :)

Email me at nataliabultman@gmail.com if you want to talk or have any more questions.

Document that explains things: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lnmSwREGG2zKGaC1PodU9wv1tED2oCxL_9qjPrO9upA/edit?usp=sharing

I participated in a debate club (my school did not compete in any league or particular format) and mock trial in high school. I debated for 5 years for Columbia, University of New Hampshire, and Harvard on the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA) in the 1990's, including serving as the board member in charge of novice development and co-director of the national championship. I consistently broke and finished in the top ten speakers at tournaments my last two years. I have judged at dozens of tournaments across APDA, CUSID (the Canadian equivalent), APDA Nationals, North Ams, and the World University Debating Championships. I have also judged at the NPDL TOC and Harvard high school tournament.

The things I value most in a debate speech are logical consistency, well developed arguments supported by analysis, and the ability to convey these ideas through speaking style. Dropped arguments are not appreciated. I will track every argument and take a tabula rasa approach; I will not allow personal opinion or arguments which were not introduced in the round affect my decision. Arguments will be weighed based on their impacts, how well they are developed, and how persuasively they are presented. It is not a numbers game so that the side with the most arguments automatically wins, nor does a single magic bullet argument guarantee victory if it is not well developed. The winning side is the one which presents the best overall case that would convince a group of thoughtful people who held no preconceived position on the topic. Complexity of argument will be rewarded.

I am open to theory arguments to check demonstrated abuse in the round, particularly to address situations where one team is denying the other a fair debate, or when one team is being offensive. I’m skeptical of kritiks, but I am open to your presentation, and will evaluate it like all other arguments, based on the analysis presented. I am My strong default for topicality is reasonableness, as competing interpretations standard tend to cause the topicality debate to occupy much more space in the round than is necessary to ensure ground for both sides.

Debaters are expected to refrain from verbal abuse of each other and show respect, including using preferred personal pronouns.

From my perspective, the point of parliamentary debate is persuasion. Speaking very quickly not only counterproductive to this end, it also makes arguments more difficult to flow. Debaters wishing to speak quickly should still ensure their points are clearly made and land with impact. Please heed warnings to slow down if they are offered. Pace of delivery is a key component in the speaker points awarded, and could also play into a decision on the victor of the round.

Signposting is helpful, but not a requirement.

Points of Information can add to a round, but I have no minimum threshold for their use. Refusal to entertain POIs at all does reflect on the confidence of the debater, and may impact the scoring of the round.

New arguments should not be brought up in the LOR, and only in the PMR to address an issue that was introduced in the MO. However, it is the responsibility of the debaters to call out such arguments through a Point of Order. POOs may be ruled on in real time or taken under consideration.

Tag-teaming is not appreciated.

Hi. I am Anna Cederstav, a parent who has been judging for two years. I am a scientist by training but lead and work with attorneys.

Eloquent, logical, well-supported arguments will impress me. Speaking at a sprint and using techy debate tricks will not.

I appreciate debates that address the entire topic, approached from a global perspective. I prefer evidence-based arguments with solid analysis over emotional appeals or exaggerated hypotheses.

Please make debate accessible to me, other judges and your opponents by speaking clearly and concisely. I am unlikely to vote in favor of kritiks.

I hope you will have fun and approach debate as if you are in a real-life situation where something important is at stake, and you are doing your best to convince others to join you.

I was a reasonably competitive policy debater for all four years of high school and for one tournament in college. I also practiced law for nine years. Spreading is fine; I can definitely still recognize quality over nonsense mumbling. I will not tolerate disrespectful/unethical behavior, shady tactics and unnecessary aggression. The flow is determinative in that I will not make arguments for you if you didn't articulate it in the round. Proper skill in navigating the flow is something I very much appreciate and respect.

Finally, be passionate even if you don’t personally believe in what you’re arguing for; learn to be an advocate. Have fun!!

I competed in LD in high school as well as other Speech Events. I've coached and judged LD and parli debate. Generally, I value the resolution and believe the Aff has the burden to show the resolution is true and neg's burden is to show its false. However, you can run Ks but provide some standard to weigh the round with persuasive arguments on why it is the appropriate standard. It is important for me that the value criterion is well defined and each party has to compare the criterion with that of their opponent. I will use the best criterion to decide the round and how contentions and impact-level arguments interact with the criterion.

Speed: I can keep up with speed to the point it is comprehensible but if I cannot understand what you are saying, it will not make it into my flow, which will ultimately be to your detriment. I like off-time road maps before your speech.

I am the former Director of Parliamentary Debate at Lowell High School and am currently the Equity Director of the Debate Society of Berkeley. I ran Equity for the NPDL TOC 2022.

I follow NPDL Round Rules. I appreciate strong technical argumentation such as thorough line-by-line analysis and detailed warranting/warrant comparison.

Debate theory is acceptable and will be considered before all other arguments. I am willing to listen to kritiks; however, I hold kritiks to the same standards as general argumentation. Thoroughly explain your theory to me and your opponents.

I debated in college for Swarthmore, and I have judged public forum a couple of times before. Please weigh clearly and signpost excessively.

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD).

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing but I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

Basic do's and don't:

DO: sign post, speak clearly, weigh

DON'T: speed read (spread), run theory other than abusive definitions calls

Hi I am Malcolm. I am now the Debate coach for Edgemont HS, and an assistant coach with Nueva.

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com . In general, I try to flow primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me.

---

PF Paradigm (updated for UK Season Opener 2023):

in brief: I've been judging a while now and will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

I am happy to evaluate kritiks. In general I think more literary arguments are a good thing. I am ok with theory. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning.

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

---

CX Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy, I am happy to evaluate any sort of argument.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

My favorite thing about CX is the creativity y'all have with arguments and strategies!

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

-----

LD. I really like judging LD! paradigm is basically same as for CX, fewer specific thoughts because it's yet to come up.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating critical positions in LD.

Tricks: I am not your judge.
------

Yana Demeshko

Ucla phd student

I have debated in both NPDA (1 year) and British Parliamentary (1 year) styles.

A judge with npda and bp experience; cannot handle spreading /speed, prefer debate with fewer arguments but deeper analysis, won't vote for a large block of arguments if each one is blipped.

Will flow as tab but generally against pre fiat Ks. Any meta theory like arguments that someone in the round doesn't exist or must lose the debate because of their identity will be dropped immediately.

Finally, I prefer arguments with articulated impacts: try to collapse in the summary speeches and tell me what the voter issues are so that the debate is easier to evaluate.

Summary

It’s your debate, I’m down to hear any argument. Comfortable with case/K/T/tricks/phil in roughly that order, but happy to evaluate any argument you make (including rejecting the res). As a debater, I went for a roughly even mix of K/case in tech rounds. Speed is fine if your opponents can handle it. Weighing and warranting win rounds. Be respectful to everyone in the round. Call the POO, articulate the cross-application, make the debate as explicit as possible for me. Email p.descollonges@gmail.com.

Background

I competed in parliamentary debate for six years, mostly at Nueva. I was most successful at tech parli, but also found success at both NorCal and Oregon lay tournaments (see bottom of paradigm for notable results if that matters for your prefs for some reason—it probably shouldn’t) I’m a freshman at UChicago and coach for Nueva. You can reach me at p.descollonges@gmail.com. To prevent this paradigm from being too unwieldy, I’ve only included actionable preferences (i.e. preferences that have a clear impact on what arguments you should be making). Outside of these explicit preferences, I strive to evaluate all arguments fairly, but if you’re interested in my specific thoughts on an argument, feel free to ask me before/after the round (e.g. whether I personally like condo—I’m more than happy to evaluate it, but I also think condo bad is underused).

NON-PARLI EVENTS (feel free to skip if you are a parli debater!!):

I'm fine with speed up to ~300 wpm. If you're in PF, go as fast as you want. For LD, feel free to spread, I'll slow if needed. For policy, you'll probably need to cut speed, but feel free to ramp and I'll slow when I need to—just give me pen time and a speech doc.

I do not know your event. I do not know your norms. I'm sorry about that! I'll do my best to evaluate your round still. Regardless of event, I will vote on clearly articulated framework/weighing/sequencing claims ALWAYS, especially if I'm not comfortable with your event. In general, I assume defense cannot win rounds. I default to a net benefits/other offense-based framework, I'm willing to evaluate stock issues framing but am probably awful at it and need a justification for it.

My lack of knowledge about norms is not an excuse to be sketchy. I am more than happy to look up the (conviniently nationally codified!) rules for non-Parli events if something feels wrong to me. This doesn't mean I'll drop you for reading a K aff (because hopefully you're reading implicit or explicit args that breaking rules is good if there's a rule against your position); but it does mean that you shouldn't expect to get away with e.g. gross speech time violations. I'll generally defer to anything both teams seem to agree on if both teams seem comfortable and I am unfamiliar with the event, unless you try to convince me to give you a double win or something in that vein.

I am a parli person. This does not mean I don't care about evidence. I have a low threshold for ballot comments about sketchy evidence. I have a much higher, but still comparatively low, threshold for intervening on evidence ethics. I have an extremely low threshold for not voting on evidence your opponents call out as sketchy if it is sketchy. I will read cards necessary to decide my ballot (yes, this includes in PF.) I will not vote on e.g. you citing a specific sub-conclusion that helps you from a study that argues generally in the opposite direction unless your opponents point it out. I will affirmatively intervene to disregard or vote down blatantly fabricated, misconstrued, or excessively powertagged evidence in compliance with NSDA evidence rules (7.4.A/B/C). I will also strive to comply with NSDA rules for formal challenges (7.2/3), but am not experienced with this procedure. Please just be ethical with your evidence.

Feel free to read my parli paradigm if you want an idea of more specific preferences! Ask me before the round if you have any questions.

PARLI:

Logistics

I hate protected time, but will grudgingly accept that some tournaments use it. It’s ultimately up to the speaker—I will not intervene if the speaker wants to take a POI during protected time. I will follow tournament rules on grace periods, but grace periods aren’t speech time—please don’t make new arguments. I will disregard them.

Call the POO. I protect in the PMR, but give the benefit of the doubt to the speaker unless a POO is called. Incorrect answers to a POO do not waive this protection. I do not protect in the LOR, because there are situations where the aff would prefer I not protect—call the POO if you want me to drop the arg. In novice/beginner rounds, I reserve the right to protect.

Please don’t shake my hand. I don’t care if you sit, stand, etc.—as long as I can understand you, you’re fine. I don't care what you're wearing. I’ll keep my mask on during the round, I’d prefer for anyone who isn’t speaking to do the same. If you’re speaking, I’m fine with you taking your mask off, but also fine with you debating with it on—whatever you’re more comfortable with.

I’ll give at least one of oral or written feedback depending on the specific circumstances of the round, defaulting to a longer oral RFD with a summary in the ballot. You are welcome to record anything I say after the round and/or request I write it out in the ballot. I will try to get substantive and substantial feedback to you in all circumstances—if the tournament bans disclosure and/or we’re running on a tight double-flighted schedule, expect a longer ballot. My preference is to give both an RFD in which I explain how I analyze the arguments in the round and individual speaker feedback, but in complicated outrounds especially, there’s a chance I won’t get to individual speaker feedback. If you’re specifically curious, always feel free to ask. I’m open to postrounding, but if I’m talking to you, I can’t change my ballot. If you think there was a genuine equity issue in the round and I've already submitted my ballot, the person to talk to is the tournament equity director, not me.

I’ll ask for any information I need for my ballot (e.g. speaker positions). No double-wins, no double-losses except in rounds with equity issues.

Speaker Points

If the tournament seeds based on speaks (speaks, -1HL, or z-score) as the first tiebreaker for teams with the same number of wins, I’ll default to 29s (or as close as possible). I’ll give 30s to anyone who impresses me, particularly with strategic argumentation. I will not hesitate to drop your score as a clear signal that I disapprove of some behavior (see equity section below), but will not go below 29 due to mistakes or perceptions of you as a “weaker” debater.

If the tournament does not seed based on speaks as the first tiebreaker, I’ll give speaks in the ~26.5-29.7 range in most rounds. You’ll get higher speaks for good strategic calls, clean argument execution, and cool extemporaneous warranting. Arguments I like that I haven’t heard before are 30s. I won’t go below 26.5 except as a statement of disapproval.

Equity

Please strive to be a good person in round and out of round. Be respectful to your opponents. I will stop the round if necessary to protect any participant in it. If you are uncomfortable, I’d appreciate it if you communicated that to me (or the tournament staff!) in some way.

Misgendering your opponents will result in lost speaker points at minimum and a round loss if egregious and/or intentional. This is also true for gendered/racialized/etc. negative comments or behavior. As a white man, I don’t have a great way to evaluate the exact harms of specific behaviors, so I’ll generally defer to preferences expressed by affected individuals in dicey situations and/or go to the tournament.

Regardless of current literature on the net effect of content warnings, in the context of the debate rounds, content warnings seem clearly net-good in terms of their risk-reward tradeoff. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round better for you!

Case

I love case debate. I wish more people did case debate. Good case debate will make me very happy as a judge. That means clear arguments with clear impacts, good interaction with your opponents arguments, and a clear (and preferably explicit) articulation of what offense will win you the round. Warranting is also key. Arguments with well-explicated warrants backing them up will almost always beat arguments without warrants.

The best way to win a close case debate is weighing. The best way to win a close weighing debate is to do metaweighing. Please tell me whether I should prefer e.g. evidence or logic. Please explain to me how that applies to your arguments specifically. If you do this, you will win 90% of the case debates I have seen.

I’d love to see more link turns. I’d love to see more uniqueness leveraged after the PMC/LOC. I’d love to see more warrants on internal links.

CPs

Down for anything. Win the theory debate. I’ll evaluate all CP theory I can think of. I’ll also evaluate all CPs I can think of, but please have good reasons to prefer, especially if you’re reading delay, etc. Condo is fine by default. Dispo means you can kick it if there’s no offense by default. PICs are fine by default.

Advantages to non-mutually-exclusive CPs are not offense (or defense). Advantages to mutually-exclusive CPs are black swans, but I’m open to hearing why they’re offensive. Perm debates are good, but please don’t say anyone is “stealing” anyone’s advantages.

Evidence

Please do not fabricate evidence. Please do not plagiarize unless the tournament requires you to do so (please reference evidence you use rather than presenting it as original analysis). If the tournament empowers me to do so, I will check your evidence after submitting my ballot, and go to tab/equity if I discover something that seems like an intentional fabrication. Obviously, you have limited prep—mistakes are human, and I won’t hold them against you.

If you give me author’s name/date/source for a claim, you’ll likely win contests over whether that literal claim is true or not. This does not modify the strategic position of the claim in the round. If you do not give me a citation for evidence, I will treat your claim as a claim. Given that I try to be tabula rasa, this is normally fine (i.e. in most debates, it won’t matter if you cite a source for the US unemployment rate).

Ks

I like hearing good K debate! I really like hearing new shells, well-thought-out strategies, good historically-backed warranting, and solid links. I really dislike hearing canned shells from backfiles you don’t understand.

I like KvK debate. I am open to rejecting the res, I’m also open to framework. I have a high threshold on Ks bad theory from the aff, but would consider voting for it.

I’m most familiar with Marx, modern Marxists, and queer/disability theory, but I’m open to hearing anything—just explain it well.

Please have specific links that are not links of omission. Please give me a role of the ballot.

I’m not convinced the aff gets a perm in a KvK debate, but I’ll default to allowing it.

T/Theory

I’m happy to listen to literally anything. I generally prefer fairness on T and education on theory, but please don’t feel bound by that. Jurisdiction is absolute BS but I’ll vote for it.

I default to competing interps over reasonability, potential over proven abuse, and drop the argument when it makes sense. I do not default to theory being a priori, make the argument (especially if your opponents could plausibly uplayer theory). I do not understand why an OCI is not a separate shell, but I’ll listen to them. I’ll reluctantly vote on RVIs, the more specific the better. I view RVIs as making local offense on the theory sheet a global voting issue by default, but will appreciate and evaluate specific texts as well.

If an argument boils down to "did the team say the magic words," I'll default to the team that spent the most time on it in absence of argumentation on either side (e.g. what counts as an RVI). If that doesn't make sense to you, ignore it, and rely on good argumentation rather than linguistic technicalities.

Results

Champion/Co-Champion: Evergreen ‘21, ‘22; Campo ‘21; TFT ‘17; Lewis and Clark ‘22; UoP ‘20; NorCal Champs ‘21, ‘22

Finalist: TOC ‘22

Semifinalist: NPDI ‘19, ‘20, ‘21

Update for ToC 2023

I want to be impressed by your debating.

1. I am more distanced from the community now, so wow me with the new meta and some innovation or just go for heg. I will struggle a bit with speed and I may not resolve complicated layering debates in predictable ways, particularly on positions I am unfamiliar with. I tend to find ballots on fairness.

2. Since I care less about competition and more about pedagogy, I'm less inclined to vote for frivolous positions in close debates. I will not intervene against your new tricks, but beware my wrath on your speaks.

3. Let your timer ring in NSDA campus if your opponent is speaking over time. There are too many weird, untimed speeches happening online to not be clear about this.

4. If there are technical, "West Coast" debaters that are deliberately making debate less accessible, I am open to voting on arguments that this specific behavior is bad and ought to be punished. However, I will not vote on arguments that say that all arguments of a certain kind are bad. If your strategy is to complain that a position is prima facie inaccessible, you should strike me.

Argument content and speed seem to be the two aspects of debate that people find inaccessible. I caution any team reading arguments about the accessibility of debate:

First, genuine attempts to engage are a necessary condition to win that a position is inaccessible. For example, if the 1NC argues that the 1AC is too fast and therefore inaccessible, I would expect that the negative littered the 1AC with POIs asking for clarification. The optimal scenario for accessibility is one in which requests for certain practices are made before the round begins, ideally before prep.

Second, a viable alternative vision of debate, this round, and the ballot is necessary. What should debate look like? How does the ballot affect it? Do I completely abandon the burden of rejoinder or apply a different standard? An argument about accessibility should answer all of these questions. If you don't provide an alternative to the burden of rejoinder, I'll likely vote on conceded responses to speed bad or cross-applications of critical arguments against K's bad, because those are common arguments that you tend to drop. That will be difficult for you, but you have been forewarned.

Third, realize that inaccessibility is not solved by excluding certain positions or practices. Mandating debaters speak below a certain rate or banning critical positions is not liberatory - it's antithetical to liberation for some, and a bit authoritarian for my taste. You are reading a position to win the round just like everyone else. That's cool, but do not pretend/argue that speed is the worst form of exclusivity and that a ballot for you would solve everything.

TL;DR

Move fast and break things. You do you, unless you avoid line-by-line, give meaningless overviews, or drop arguments. Don’t do that. Do some argument resolution. Adapt to your opponents and think strategically before the speech/round/tournament.

Arguments require warrants. Tech >>>>>>>>>> Truth. Good framing makes voting simpler. I’m a link person more than a uniqueness person. K affs are fine, but I like fw. I enjoy direct, substantive clash. Theory is fine.

Background

he/him/his; Bellarmine College Prep ‘19, Georgetown ‘23; I like economics; debated at Bell, Notre Dame, and MVLA; coached at MVLA; coached Evergreen MS.

In high school, I read politics, heg, and long, conditional 1NCs. I went to one college tournament and read a queer temporality performance aff, framework, cap, and theory (and case!).

My resting face can be frowning or stern. Don’t take it badly - I’m just thinking.

Ballot

I will intervene on speech times, giving at most one win, that I only flow what the designated speaker says, and that structural violence in debate is real. If necessary, give content/trigger warnings before the round/speech. Deliberate misgendering along with anything else morally abhorrent is an auto-loss.

Claims require warrants. Pointing out that an argument lacks a warrant is sufficient for terminal defense. Empirics > analytics > testimonies. Interaction does not require signposting, but it helps.

Conceded claims need not be extended. If an argument is dropped, I will consider it true. But, I should be able to explain the arguments I’m voting on, so a quick explanation when extending an important argument would hel.

Style

I don’t care iff I can understand you. I will yell clear if necessary, but after a three times, I will stop flowing. Slow down on tags and be clear with subpoints, please. Except in cases where your opponent is unable to compete with your speech, I’m down for speed. If you’re in doubt, I will default to tournament norms for speed/tech.

Case, I guess

Case defense is overrated, case offense is appropriately rated, framing is underrated. A long framing sheet, even as early as the 1AC, is great. Impact terminalization and weighing is a must in case debates. Absent these arguments, intervention is more likely necessary to resolve the debate.

Infinite condo with intrinsicness perms is sounds like a fun model for debate. I find myself arguing that uniqueness controls the link but believing that the other way around is more correct.

I find it difficult to evaluate turns case scenarios, squo solves, or solvency arguments that are not articulated in the context of the advantage(s).

CP

Turns out that a fresh-out-the-oven cp that defaces the absurd cherry-picking that is the aff's solvency mechanism gets me just as excited as it would get anyone else. If the 1AC internal links aren't tight, punish them. The more specific, well-warranted the solvency deficit and net benefit are, the better. PICs and actor counterplans are not good strategies.

CP theory is probably reject the argument. 2A’s, don’t bother with shell theory if the 1AR can explain the obvious brightline. It's a hard sell for me that PICs are ever legitimate on (functionally) one-topical-aff topics.

Conditionality is great and underutilized. 1 condo makes theory an uphill battle, 2 is fine, 3 is pushing it, 4+ and I'll be more sympathetic to the aff.

K’s

I wasn’t the most prolific K debater, but I’m down. If you're reading complex high theory, I'm a bad judge for you - not because I'm particularly biased against the K, but because I'm not well-versed on many lit bases and I haven't judged a lot of high theory K rounds, so I might not necessarily resolve a messy debate in the way you expect.

The criticism should disagree with and disprove the aff. I have a high threshold for voting on sweeping claims about the structure of society/the world. I’m inclined to weigh the plan/the 1AC in some form. I am more convinced by 1NCs that engage with the case.

Lit I’m comfy with: SetCol, Security, Neolib

Leave time for questions.

Framework

Bread-and-butter fairness first is fine, but I avoided this strategy, although skews eval is probably True. I'm enthused by, well-read in, and interested in watching debates of the more interesting framework impacts - self-questioning, debatability, epistemic humility, etc. Procedural fairness is still an impact, though. Defenses of policymaking are fine, args like "policymaking key to solving climate change" are silly.

IVIs

My threshold for IVIs is 1. a sufficiently strong claim to the ballot and 2. they do not operate under any existing framework in the round.

If an independent voting issue's offense operates under an existing framework in the round, it is probably not an IVI. Examples of each side of this:

1. Reading SetCol on the neg conditionally is probably a relink to the K, but unless it's a categorically distinct abuse/offense/violation, it's not an IVI.

2. Regardless of whether or not "discourse matters" framing exists in a round, saying a slur is obviously distinct from using language of settlerism. I'll drop anyone who does it instantly, but it's useful to clarify that the IVI exists under my threshold - "slurs bad" operates under a distinct framework and has a clear claim to the ballot - the IVI is justified.

If you spam IVIs, I will take a baseball bat to your speaks. An additional link to your criticism is not, in fact, an independent voting issue.

There seem to be a disturbing number of IVIs that are essentially "answering our argument is a form of {whatever we criticize}, it's an IVI." This is not how debate works. If the position centers the issue of white people/cishet people/settlers/whomever, yeah, maybe. If it's a case turn - hurts the folks you're trying to help - that's not an IVI, it's a response with which you must engage. Your ideas are subject to criticism.

Critical Affirmatives

The affirmative should be topical or impact turn fairness cleanly to win my ballot. Beware, my most controversial ballots are finding thin routes to the ballot on framework.

Develop a couple pieces of thesis-level offense and lbl effectively. You will lose if you drop fairness first (skews eval, etc.) in the 2AC. I find I often give low speaks to 2ACs on critical affirmatives because they are terrible at answering framework (which is silly, and yet...).

Unless the aff impact turns framework, the counter-interp is usually undercovered by the negative. LBLing the standards debate is usually a waste of time.

Theory/Tricks

Paragraph theory > shell theory, especially on CP theory. I don’t need an interpretation to know what condo bad or actor CPs bad means.

I default to competing interps. Absent contradictory arguments, reading an interp is not necessary to win theory, but it helps. I think reasonability (substance crowdout) is underutilized and has potential value as metatheory. All other brightlines are terrible. I’m ambivalent about RVIs - debate them. I default to and am inclined to drop the argument, barring condo.d

I'll grudgingly tolerate friv. I dislike NIBs and/or presumption triggers that have sweeping implications (truth value). I’m uncomfortable but willing to abandon offense-defense for truth-testing or anything else.

Rebuttals

Please don’t call the POO, I’ll protect. Don't POO the 1NR. I hold the line on new args higher than most judges. No new layers that are not sublayers that are responsive to arguments in the block.

I prefer early-breaking debates. I would rather the 2nd constructives make arguments about the leeway I should give the rebuttal than leave me to protect or not. Do more weighing and warrant comparison.

Other

Presumption goes to advocacy of least change absent other argumentation. In a relevant case, I will apply this standard paradigmatically (e.g. a round in which 1. all offense is zero-risk 2. the negative reads a counterplan 3. no presumption arguments are made).

Splitting the block is fine.

Explaining dense arguments will make voting on them easier.

Unless you gain significant, asymmetrical advantage from disclosure, or someone in the round requests that I do not disclose, I will disclose. Please ask questions and argue with me if you think it’ll help you be a better debater. I won't change my decision, but as long as the conversation does not become circular, I don't really care if you argue with me (as long as we maintain basic respect).

Policy >>>>>>>>>> Value > Fact. My ideal value or fact debate involves a disclosed, relevant, directional plan-text in prep and no “must/must not read plan” or trichot theory. Debate is your space, do what you want with it.

Claiming that an argument was “conceded” has replaced substantive clash in a disturbingly large number of speeches. Overusing the phrase “conceded” or (even worse) “cold conceded” will cost you speaks.

I will likely grant permission for you to audio record my RFD. Please ask before recording.

Don’t call me “judge.”

Here are cool things I didn't do/wasn't able to do/didn't do as often as I wished. If you do them well, you'll get a speaks bump; if you do them poorly, I'll be sad: embedded clash; numbering frontline responses; speed, clarity, and efficiency; advantage counterplan + impact turn; going for the politics DA with good link arguments as a real strategy; courts CPs; being a K team.

Speaks

29.7+ – top speaker.

29.3-29.7 – top 5-10 speaker.

29-29.3 – top 20 speaker.

28.5 -29 – a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; should break.

28.2-28.5 – a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.8-28.2 – a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27-27.8 – a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

Be clear even when you are being unclear.

Similar Debaters

Please reach out to ask questions or talk debate

I don't talk about debate with anyone anymore, but when I did, it was with Riley Shahar, Sierra Maciorowski, Alden O'Rafferty, Trevor Greenan, and Brian Yang. If you can't reach me pre-round, Riley and I coached (and debated) together and are similar paradigmatically, they will know how to answer your questions.

tl;dr: I'm a flow Parliamentary judge, good with speed. If you make my job of evaluating easier by collapsing and covering the flow, then you'll get my ballot. Policy background, thus a lover of kritiks. Aff Ks are hot, but so are Aff Ks Bad Theory. I default to K > T > Case.

Quick Bio: Hello! My name is Renée Diop and I'm a high school debate coach, tutor, judge, and former competitor. I finaled the California High School Speech Association State Championship in Parliamentary Debate in 2022, and now pass on my recent knowledge of the game to current high school students. I'm a Political Science and Linguistics major at California State University, Long Beach, and also offer English tutoring services. If you're interested in debate or English tutoring, email me at dioprenee@gmail.com. LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/renéediop.

CASE:

Both sides: Definitions need to come out of the first 2 constructive speeches, no backtracking and redefining halfway through the round. For the love of Allah (SWT), collapse collapse collapse.

Aff: I want a killer MG; a good PMR won't win me over if the MG was trash. Kill the flow and leave Neg with zero outs and I'll give you a cookie. For the PMR the best you can do for me is reframe the round and contextualize it under your weighing mechanism, but most of the time my mind is already made up before then.

Neg: LOC needs to hard carry right out the gate. Open to PICs and counter-definitions as long as they come from the LOC and nowhere else; LOR should be preempting, wiping the flow clean so I can vote without even having to listen to the PMR.

THEORY:

Overall: Open to friv T, just don't read off 10 standards and be a douche about it. Keep it cute and fun. Collapse on 1 voters/impact, don't be messy and make me do all the work to evaluate several different layers. Anything that makes me do more work is something to avoid doing. Tell me T > Ks and T > case, but actually give legitimate reasons for why.

Ks Bad T: Not a fan of it. I love a good K, what can I say (hey that rhymed!). Unless you can present me with some new and unique standards, I believe that Ks specifically grant access for minority debaters, and generalizing all Ks as being "bad" by default is a red flag for me. The only other circumstance I would vote for them is if your opponents are being blatantly inaccessible by spreading you out of the round, being ivory tower, etc.

Aff Ks Bad T: Now this is reasonable. I'll vote for it if you're smart about it. If not, my default is to accept Aff Ks so take this opportunity if it arises.

KRITIKS:

Overall: Cool with Aff Ks as long as you disclose during prep. I did gender, queer, necro-capitalism, anti-blackness, settler colonialism, and marx Ks in high school so if your K aligns with any of those then go for it. Be accessible or your K has no impact! This means 1) Don't spread your opponents out of the round. 2) Give definitions for the hella obscurewords your literature references. I'm no parent judge, but I also don't have a PhD in English. I'm cool Ks as long as you can translate it to the common vernacular.

Framework: I should know exactly what your thesis is by the end of the FW. Don't wait until the alternative to clearly explain your ideas. Tell me how to evaluate pre vs. post fiat impacts, give me a role of the ballot.

Links: Quality > quantity. No link means no K, so choose them wisely. I want claim, evidence, reasoning like a sophomore year Honors English class. Don't just say, "Our opps did this so they're linking into the K!" actually explain it and justify it with evidence.

Impacts: Don't waste too much time on them. Lowkey unimportant unless they have in-round/real-world solvency.

Alternative: Not huge on revolutionary/utopian alts, I find them to be no different than post-fiat arguments in most circumstances. If your K has in-round, debate-space solvency then I'll love and cherish you till the ends of the earth <3.

K vs. K rounds: You're so cool if you do this. Love the inevitably high amounts of clash these rounds produce. Just make sure there are proper re-links and that your alternative solves/is a prerequisite to solving theirs.

Thank you for reading & good luck! Hmu after any round to ask a question, get advice, want me to teach you debate, or literally anything else. Email me at dioprenee@gmail.com. LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/renéediop.

pronouns: they/she

I participated in high school speech and debate for three years and am a former captain from Crescenta Valley. Currently, I'm coaching at Berkeley High School and am a freshman at UC Berkeley majoring in Global Studies and Urban Studies. In high school I predominantly competed in parliamentary debate and extemporaneous speaking. I competed and broke at states, nationals, and NPDL TOC so I am familiar with both lay and tech styles (prefer the former). If any part of my paradigm doesn't make sense PLEASE ASK ME before the round. I'm here to make your speech and debate experience better.

Debate: The biggest priority in debate should be ensuring that the space is safe and inclusive to all debaters. I will drop you for making it unsafe or exclusive (e.g. racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). Clearly explained warrants, links, and impacts will always be to your advantage. Signposting makes the entire round run smoother and comparative weighing makes the round far more engaging and easier to judge, so I highly recommend doing both. See speech section for info on speaks.

Theory/Kritiks: I don't have the most background or experience with them, probably not the best judge to run these arguments with, especially if they're frivolous. That said, I can flow them if they are well constructed and clearly explained and if you feel like they are necessary please run them. Ks and theory are pretty exclusive arguments, and many debaters don't have the resources to use or respond to them, don't use these arguments solely to flow your opponents out of the round.

Speech: If you want time signals let me know before the round and I'll happily give them. Speaks start at 27.5 for my base or average and go up/down from there. Novices will automatically get a one point bump. The main ways to boost your speaker rank and speaker points are by having engaging content, utilizing body language, having tonal and vocal inflection, and by adding humor and personality to the speech. I will give 15-30 seconds of grace time unless told not to (if it's an incredibly short event like spar that number is more like 10 seconds, don't abuse it).

2 years of experience as a high school speech competitor, four years of experience debating on the American Parliamentary Debate Association circuit.

Ok with speed (flowing with pen and paper so please don't gosuperfast)

Looking for weighing, impacts, points of crytalization, and kindness

I am a parent judge and a lawyer. I primarily judge parliamentary debate but have judged public forum and LD a few times. As a parent/lay judge, I am not trained or well-versed in the technical rules/strategies for parliamentary debate (or any other format for that matter). Moreover, as a lawyer, I present and evaluate arguments for a living and in the real world where "kritiks" "theory" and spreading are typically not effective means to persuade. This means I value logical, substantive arguments about the underlying case/resolution over technical gamesmanship, jargon, and speed.

I also value "sportsmanship" -- which means debaters who are rude, disrespectful, arrogant, condescending, disruptive etc. toward their opponent(s) both during and before/after rounds will have a very difficult time earning my support.

I am a parent judge (software engineer) with 1 year of judging experience. I value arguments that are explained clearly and presented in a well organized flow. Speaking too fast or having a messy flow will only hurt you so try and keep your information and end goal clear.

Theories: I do not understand theories very well. If you want to run theory, explain slowly what the theory is, and why I should vote on it over case. Also clearly explain how the other team is violating your theory.

Kritiks: I do not understand kritiks so most likely if you run a kritik, I will get confused so please do not run them unless absolutely necessary.

Please be respectful to others during the round.

I am a sophomore in college and competed in a parliamentary debate in high school. I am also an experienced judge. My pronouns are she/her.

-Above everything be respectful and enjoy the debate! I know debate can be stressful sometimes so just make sure to breathe. If something in the round is making you uncomfortable, please let me know. Nobody can debate their best in a hostile environment.

-If you remember and feel comfortable in doing so, please introduce yourself with your pronouns at the beginning of your speech.

-No off-time content, you should have enough time to say it in the actual speech.

-Spreading is acceptable as long as you are clear and are not outspreading your opponents.

-Take POIs!

-Try to avoid PICs, Ks.

-Please don't abuse tech debate skills. Make sure to use words not because they seem like they sound nice but also because you understand them and they are applicable.

Looking forward to overseeing a productive and respectful round, and if you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to let me know!

I have just started debating so I do not have much experience.

I expect very little as a judge.

All I ask is that people remain respectful to each other, and speak as clear as possible.

I am a lay judge.

Note that the below was written in a parliamentary debate context, where I spend the vast majority of my time judging. I've judged LD, PF, CX, WS in the past, but not for several years, so I may not be as familiar with the conventions as I used to be. All the below should still apply.

ABOUT ME:

I competed for Ridge in extemp for four years, and for Rutgers on APDA for four years. I've coached (lay) policy, PF, extemp, Congress, and parli for Ridge (on and off) since 2016, and I coached North Star Academy in policy for one academic year. I have degrees in political science and accounting. I work in analytics for an insurance carrier in Connecticut. I use he/him pronouns.

GENERAL/OVERVIEW:

Debate is collaborative, adversarial truth seeking. I like all kinds of arguments (but I like good arguments best). Be kind to each other! Rounds should be safe spaces, I will drop you for bigotry.

SPEED:

I don’t have any issue with speed in principle. Personally, I’m not great at understanding circuit-level speed, but I’m happy to say clear as often as needed. If your opponent makes a good-faith request that you slow down, you should slow down. If you don’t do so, I’ll almost certainly drop you.

STRUCTURE:

Framework debate is very important. I think that everything said in a round, including framework, is an argument, and arguments shouldn’t simply be asserted. Why should I prefer your weighing mechanism? Why is your actor the correct one?

Please signpost very cleanly. I never want to wonder what argument/subpoint/section of your speech you are on.

I very, very strongly prefer rebuttals that are almost entirely off-flow. PMR and LOR are opportunities for you to write my ballot for me. These speeches should weigh impacts, crystallize, and show me why you won the round.

Unless directed otherwise by tab policy, I will consider all new arguments in rebuttal speeches if they are not called out in points of order. Even if tab policy directs me to protect the flow, if I'm unsure if a point is new or not, I will likely default to assuming the argument is not new. All of this is to say: if you think a point is new, call a point of order!

If you go over time, I will stop flowing at the end of grace. I will cut you off if it gets to be particularly egregious.

For virtual tournaments, if you're running a plan or counterplan, I would appreciate it if you paste the plan text in the chat function.

COUNTERPLANS:

I don’t have any issue with CPs, but I dislike plan inclusive counterplans and counterplans that are very minor modifications to the plan (eg, do the plan but do it two weeks later). I don’t dislike them enough to intervene against them, and I have voted for them in the past, but I think they’re probably bad for debate and will be amenable to arguments to that effect. In any case please put your CP text in the chat for virtual tournaments.

THEORY/K/TOPICALITY:
I like all three! I like K affs! I like well done theory in response to Ks! But see above: I like all arguments. You should run these if you think they are appropriate for the situation. I was not a K debater, and I am not especially familiar with any of the kritikal literature, but I am happy to listen to whatever you read. In any case, with any of these arguments, please make sure the critical components (eg alt, ROB, interp, violations, etc) are highlighted and easy to flow.

Post 2023 NPDL TOC note: I find myself voting for K teams relatively often because they often give me really clear roles of the ballot, while teams responding to a K are often a little less clear about the ROB. My aim is to intervene as little as possible, and where one team tells me what my ballot is for and the other team doesn't, I'm very often voting for the former. So, if you're responding to a K: don't just tell me why the K is bad, tell me what my ballot is for, and why I should vote for you. It's perfectly fine if your answer to that is the ROB is to vote for the team that proves the resolution true/false! I really can't stress enough how important this is.

You should not read my paradigm to mean that I am not amenable to Ks bad arguments: I am perfectly willing to vote for Ks bad, and am open to RVIs deployed to that effect. That said if your standard response to Ks is disclosure theory it's probably best to ask the team if they're planning on running one.

TECH vs. TRUTH:

I guess I’m slightly on the tech side of things? I don’t think I have ever judged a round where I thought “since I’m a tech judge, I will vote x, but if I were a truth judge, I would have voted y.” I think arguments need to be warranted to have any weight in my decision, though.

I will always adhere to tab/tournament policy re: evidence.

POIs:

I think you should take one, I don’t care if you take more than that.

ENDNOTES:
I’m always happy to answer any questions before the round, or about my RFD/feedback after the round. I love judging and I’m very excited to be judging your round.

hey! I am currently not active in debate, if you would like to read my paradigm or contact me for whatever reason my email is paulinaoakland@gmail.com . Feel free to reach out.

Hi! I'm a previous Parli debater, now college student who does Ethics Bowl (kinda similar!) Be kind to each other, don't be overly technical for the sake of looking more competent, and don't spread. I don't love frivolous theory or Ks, but I understand that sometimes Ks and theory are genuinely needed.

I won't vote against you for using off-time road maps, but I don't prefer it — use your time to do all your outlining and debating!

Counterplans are great, but I don't love plan-inclusive counterplans — I won't reject them on that alone, but it seems difficult to have a productive interesting debate with them.

Try to take some POIs, I understand you can't take all of them, but one or two is more than reasonable.

One time in a round this guy said to me that people in poverty should just stop taking vacations and save their money and then everything would be fine. Don't be that guy.

Have fun and be respectful!

My name is Lukas Hemmer. I have received judge training, and have participated in 5 tournaments, but please go easy. I am looking for clear and concise arguments delivered slowly and carefully. Treat me like you would a "Lay" judge.

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

It's your round, you can do what you want to, but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences.

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/nonunique Ks. My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interps is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are my defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a CP flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior.

Impacts: Terminalize them. Weigh them. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: I consider a permutation the affirmative takes as their advocacy as severance out of the 1AC, which is fine, if you're going to defend severance. If you want to have a solid plan debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain fairness/education) in general and default to competing interpretations. I will vote on RVIs but usually only on genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew.

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a strategic choice. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files--write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most K literature (but I'm still waiting for a solid PhilSci K). Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it, unless you’ve been spread out. Ks that weaponize identities against each other are rough for you and also for me--don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

Trichotomy: In parli, prefer policy rounds since util/net benefits seems to be the framework most debaters best understand. I'm open to fact/value or other framing (e.g. criticism) as long as you have a rigorous understanding and articulation of framework.

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off in my flowing functionality above the 300 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains just because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/interp, you are expected to provide it.

'Kyle' or 'Judge' (he/him)

kylehietala@gmail.com

Program Director & Head Coach at Palo Alto High School
President of the National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)

ex-LD, OO @ Morse High School
ex-APDA @ Yale University

____

Summary

Experienced flow judge from a traditional background. I spend most of my time as an administrator nowadays, so I'm probably not up-to-date on topic literature/circuit trends. I'm receptive to many arguments, styles, strategies, etc., but I'm less familiar with the progressive edges of circuit debate (e.g. performance, AFF Ks). I prefer clash-heavy, topical case rounds with in-depth warrant comparison. I tend to prefer explanation and analysis (quality, depth) over assertion and gamesmanship (quantity, breadth). I also tend to dislike clash evasion (e.g. tricks, blippy theory). I'm fine with fast rounds, but not top-speed circuit spreading. Above all, I expect you to be kind and respectful to everyone.

____

How I Vote

I vote for whomever does better comparative weighing of well-warranted impacts about the main clash(es) of the round. Clarity is your responsibility: if I don't understand something, I won't vote for it. Although technique generally determines what I consider to be true, it doesn't excuse you from making credible arguments – and I'll probably ignore any frivolous assertions (e.g. tricks) made only for tactical advantage/technical exclusion. You should spend a lot more time explaining why you're winning the warrant/link level of the argument(s) you're going for – and a lot less time telling me truisms about impacts, like 'extinction bad irreversible' or 'quality of life good.'

____

Specifics

Evidence - I expect ethical integrity, though I rarely decide rounds on cards; evidence should support warranting, not vice versa.

Framework - I love nuanced framework debate because it usually makes my job easier and reduces the risk of intervention.

Kritiks - I'm fine with Ks, but I probably don't know your literature, so be really clear. Ks should be topical with a clear link and tangible impact.

New Arguments - I protect the flow in all events, but you should still call the POO if it's Parli.

Plans/Counterplans - I prefer actor/advantage CPs over process CPs. I don't like PICs, and I really don't like conditional CPs.

Presumption - I don't presume. I think these arguments are usually clash-evasive, and I'd strongly prefer topical engagement.

Speed/Spread - I can flow up to ~250wpm, which is probably 'very slow circuit spreading' or 'very fast lay speaking.'

Theory - I'm fine with theory about specific, in-round violations. I will ignore frivolous theory. Weak leans to DTA > DTD, R > CI, yes RVIs.

Topicality - I'm more receptive to specific, niche advocacies/plans than to extra-topical advocacies/plans.

____

Prefs Shortcut

1 - trad/case

2 - lay Ks, LARP

3 - phil, K

4 - theory, T

5 - AFF Ks, performance

STRIKE - friv theory, tricks

I am a lay parent judge. If you spread or speak quickly and I cannot follow your arguments, I won't be able to flow or vote off of it so please articulate your words and don't speak super-fast. If you run theory arguments I will flow to the best of my ability, but please have a clearly structured shell and don't run frivolous theory. Clear links and impacts are important; explain to me why your arguments matter.

Please speak at a normal pace. I prefer substance over style but enjoy good rhetoric. No ks. Theory will not be appreciated as a tool to win - only use it to point out actual abuse. Warranting should be supported with evidence. Weighing is important. Signposting is greatly appreciated.

I value clear speaking and good speaking style - don't talk too fast, good speaking style is essential.

Make sure you have good content with with both evidence and reasoning. When it comes to these two elements, reasoning is more important. However, make sure you have evidence to back up your claims.

Make sure to impact out your contentions, and signpost clearly throughout your speeches.

Please respect everyone in the round. Be polite to your teammate and your opponents - I will dock speaker points if I observe someone being unnecessarily rude.

If you choose to run a counterplan, make sure that you explain why it's a better solution and link it to your points.

Hi everyone, my name is Shiranthi. A little bit about my experience: I’ve been out of the debate community for the past two years now but before that I’ve qualified for TOC twice, attended Semis/Quarters at Cal Parli, Notre Dame, SCU 1 and 2, Stanford, NPDI, UOP etc. I’m currently a Managerial Economics major and Statistics minor at UC Davis (so I really like factual data!!)

Here is how I view a round: I REALLY LIKE IMPACTS, I think the quality of impact weighing can give a team a win. Though I have ran theory shells during my time as a debater, I dislike when a round boils down to the semantics of a theory shell or Kritik. But I think in some cases, it is absolutely necessary to have theory in the round, and in those cases, as long as you articulate well and sign post I’ll be ok. Advantage structure is really important as well, I need to see a clear link between your facts and how you’re getting to your impacts (especially if they’re very high in magnitude). While I believe defensive arguments are critical in a debate, I will be mainly focusing on offensive arguments when determining who wins on the flow. If you have any questions on this, feel free to ask me before the round :)

Spreading: I think the number one goal of a debate is to gain some kind of educational value from the discourse. I believe spreading to an extreme amount where no one can understand what is happening in a round is disadvantageous for both teams. I would prefer you speak at a reasonable pace but if you speak fast and the other team does not object, then I’m okay with it too.

"Assuming a pill exists that compels the user to tell the truth, THW destroy it." — Recent fun motion

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

Read the following sections: Overview, General Paradigm, Miscellany and Weird Aside on Evidence -- all else is Parli specific.

Relevant information for PF: I have a strong distaste for theory but as per modern paradigmatic standards, I'm happy to evaluate it as warranted in the round. The bar to convince me to pick up or drop a team on a theory call is likely pretty high. I will tank you if the theory is strategic and not based on something reasonable.

Regarding evidence in PF. I actually debated PF some in High School, I'm not unfamiliar with evidence and carded debate. The maxim that evidence doesn't replace warranting is still true, though, and I will reward better warranted arguments over better carded arguments assuming the belivability of the claim is constant.

Ask me questions before the round if you have questions -- I'd love to get to know you as well -- debate is a game, but we are all members of the community of debate and I'd love to foster that as much as possible. Ask me questions about college debate if you're a senior (or not) -- I'll connect you with the debate team of your institution if you know where you're going etc. I love verbal RFDs so will probably give one. I don't understand PF speaker points so take those with a grain of salt.

I don't claim to be an expert in PF or anything close. I do understand argumentation, warranting, impacting, weighing, etc, and want to see all of that in a round at the highest quality possible.

Parliamentary Debate

If you read nothing else, read this: don't spread; don't tag team; keep stuff in your time; be wary of theory; impact; weigh; warrant.

Overview

I debated for four years as a student at Stuyvesant High School and currently debate APDA for Columbia University. I have experience teaching debate to middle school and high school students, I tab way too often, and have lead more judge orientations than I care remember. If you care, I'm the president of APDA, the oldest and best college debate league.

People tend to care a lot about these paradigms — I really don't — if you have specific questions, ask me before rounds, in GA, whatever. Please do ask if something is unclear!

I run whacky cases, I debate whacky cases, I choose whacky motions — I really don't mind a lot if it's done well and respectful and conducive to a good round of debate.

General Paradigm

So everyone likes to claim they're a tabula rasa judge. I think this is nonsensical. Obviously personal views will not influence the round, but as arguments leave the sphere of the normal and easily bought, the burden of warranting well increases.

It's reasonably straightforward for me to buy, for example, that individuals do things that make them happy, and since eating ice cream makes people happy, people eat ice cream; but is comparatively hard for me to buy that actually, instead of eating the ice cream in my refrigerator, I'm going to make a 2 day trek across tundra to obtain some of the same ice cream.

I don't mean to discourage complex, strange, or whacky argumentation; rather, I aim to encourage elegant, simple, but robust warranting.

Theory

Theory has its place (LD / Policy / new PF circuit / your dinner table maybe ?) — and it's almost never in a parliamentary debate round.

Please limit any kritiks, theory calls, whatever else theory masquerades as nowadays, to instances where the use therein is warranted. Unless something is tightly or abusively defined / modeled or one team is engaging in reprehensible behavior, there is no need for theory — debate the resolution. This is an instance where I am certainly not tabula rasa, I will almost always, except in these previous instances, assume that the theory is being used in an effort to actively exclude the other team simply because the assumption is that I, as a seasoned debater, can follow it (which I can). Except in the caveated cases, the burden is on the team using a kritik or some other theory to prove to me they are not doing this.

If you want to argue about mutual exclusivity of a counterplan, or whatever else you want to do, please be sure to not forget to warrant, and explain things in reasonable terms. Just as you're not going to go off using advanced economic terms in rounds, and instead going to explain how a bubble works (hopefully), don't just use a pick, actually explain and warrant it. And on that, a counterplan had better be mutually exclusive, or at least functionally so, given certain tradeoffs.

Expect lower speaker points and to lose in cases of over eagerly applied theory.

Miscellany

I don't want to warrant for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to impact for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to weigh for you. Don't make me.

I am not going to get into what makes a warrant 'good' or an impact effective or weighing necessary, please as your coach, varsity, mentor, or email me if none of the previous options are available to you (johnrod.john@gmail.com).

The final two speeches of a round (the rebuttal or crystallization speeches) are NOT to restate every point in the round, but instead are meant to synthesize, weigh, and flesh out impacts. Please do that. The most effective rebuttal speeches focus on two to three levels of conditional weighing. I won't vote on some random unimpacted and unweighed pull through.

Don't spread — think about a speed a non debater would be able to reasonably follow. This usually means something fast, but not double breathing. Side note: someone who enjoys spreading please explain to me how this doesn't destroy the educational value in learning how to be a rhetorical and persuasive speaker please!

Instead of focusing on a breadth of argumentation, please focus on a depth of argumentation that is complex, and includes a high level of weighing structures and effective warranting.

Tag teaming — never seen this in parli outside of the west coast. Don't do it, you'll have your own chance to speak.

POIs — take them, use them, respect them. Don't go back and forth — if I wanted crossfire I'd be at a PF tournament. Seriously. Also, these are supposed to be fun and humorous — if you don't believe me, watch the House of Commons — however, you are HS debaters and probably take everything way too seriously, therefore I'll settle for not rude.

Offtime Stuff — No. You don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it.

Weird Aside on Evidence

Please don't confuse providing evidence with providing warrants. Simply because you were able to effectively use Google and find someone who said something doesn't mean that it's a) true b) important c) relevant d) it will happen again e) isn't without opposing evidence. Please always default to explaining why something happened, not simply that it did, or that someone believes it will happen again.

I have never once picked a team up for the quality of a card, and no round should ever come down to a piece of evidence in any way, shape, or form.

Hello, My name is Peace John-Kalio, I am a seasoned debater, experienced judge and a great coach.

I have gathered experience and exploits in different forms of Debating such as British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, World Schools Debating format, Public Forum debates, Lincoln Douglas, Speech formats, and Canadian National Debate format etc.

As a judge i pirotiize logic and contents within debates and how speakers are able to logically defend their side and also logically rebutt their opponeths side.

I also pioritze equity within tournaments therefore I deem it important for speakers and all participants in general to have read tournaments briefings and manuals as I also do so myself in other for each participants to know what is expected from them.

The above also makes knowing different procedures like role fulfillment easier and how to tackle different types of motions and the burdens these different types impose on speakers therefore making rounds more engaging. I deem it as valuable for speakers to be aware of this.

Going further I appreciate when speakers are able to apply special skills and techniques within rounds such as counterfactual and fiats etc.

I also appreciate when speakers are time conscious and employ techniques like Pioritizing more important arguments so when time is up they are not at a loss.

In conclusion I like when speakers in whip and summary speeches are able to emphasize and compare why they win with the arguments brought up by their previous partners and how those arguments beat the opponents by drawing comparisons and not necessarily trying to add extentions. Speakers are also advised and encouraged to keep cameras on during rounds in an online tournament unless in situations that they absolutely cannot afford to.

I have also participated in cultural diversity training as a judge, several judging workshops and of course several tournaments both as a speaker and a judge.

I approach judging tabula rasa. I do not act as the thought police. I value deep dives into difficult subjects and honor the free speech on the issues that emerge. I enjoy open robust discussion at any speed. I appreciate self-control.

I monitor arguments. I protect the flow as a judge. I especially observe how the original position evolves and if any declared main points are dropped, left open or ignored. I notice if there are new arguments in closing. Brief points of information/order may be raised.

I prefer less debate the debate. Yet if you really want to get metaphysical on some topic and are adroit at this, bring it. I encourage competitors to use a strategy that highlights their skill set. One may use kritik or “theory”. I discourage these elements as the entire content of a speech.

I look for a high level debaters to adapt rapidly. Adeptly follow tournament rules or strategically abandon if there is a consensus to toss out rubric. Do not be shy to voice preferences on this because it is your round. My one rule is do not be a jerk.

I have judged debate competitions at three levels: high school (6 years), college (9 years), and professional/graduate (2 years). Those are overlapping years.

I studied Philosophy in college, specifically Metaphysics & Logic. I was a collegiate debate team officer. I went to graduate school for an MA in Speech. I also have an MBA.

My debate awards include being a collegiate APDA National Semifinalist. I also earned collegiate individual speaker awards, college top ten finishes, break out rounds, North American and World tournaments and a world ranking.

As a passion, I designed scoring in the recent past for real community debates, and earlier for college intra-murals, and most notably back in the day for the Oxford Union, which they used at their world tournament, and was then adopted by others.

I've debated for all four years of high school, and I continue to debate British Parliamentary on the collegiate level with the Debate Union @ UCLA. I have competition experience mainly in Public Forum and Parliamentary debate, but I have also competed in World Schools, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress. Some notable competitions I've qualified to are CHSSA State Quals, NSDA Nationals, and NPDL TOC.

I'd say I'm a fairly standard judge. Some notes:

• I will judge as if I went into the round knowing nothing about the topic, so it is your job to call out any misconstrued evidence/incorrect arguments.
• Interact with your opponent's case. Either through rebuttal or weighing.
• Please signpost/have organization for your case. I can flow even if your case is a little all over the place, but not being organized increases the chance that a judge will miss something, plus it makes your case less effective.
• If you speak pretty quickly I can keep up, but don't do it to the point of incomprehensibility. AKA do not spread.
• Every claim should be warranted. Even if you don't have access to statistics/sources, you should explain with logical reasoning as to why an impact comes into being. Just asserting something without backing it up with some explanation does not get you your impact.
• You should clearly state what your impacts are, and why I should consider your impacts over those of the other team. Not clearly weighing impacts means that the judge must make that consideration themselves, and that is not something which you typically want.
• I was not a super circuit debater during my time in high school, so I am not the best person to run a K with. Given that, I do know what it is, and I have heard some in round before. If you feel that you must, you can, but explain why your K takes precedence over the debate, and give clear explanation as to what kind of argument you are running, as your opponents may not have even heard of a K before.
• If you want extra feedback after the round, or need to add me to an email chain, my email is ellenakim0806@g.ucla.edu.

As always, please be courteous and respectful towards everyone in the round at all times- you know the drill. Good luck and have fun!

Competed in parliamentary debate for 4 years at Campolindo (2017-21); current undergrad at Duke

General

- Basically, run whatever you want.

- While I was (almost exclusively) a case debater throughout high school, don't let that deter you from reading your theories and Ks. It is your round and you should do what you want / are most comfortable with / have the best chance to win with.

- Call POOs. I should not have to protect the flow in the first place because new information should not be brought up. But if it is, the opposing team should call it out. Tell me exactly which point / articulation should be stricken from the flow.

- Read all texts (plans, interps, alts, etc.) twice and slowly.

- Give the opposing team a copy of any texts in a timely fashion if they ask for one.

- Do not go over time.

Case

- When defending the resolution, Aff should give a clear top of case with definitions and all components of the plan. Assume I know no specifics about the topic.

- Signpost your advantages/disadvantages clearly; brief taglines for each point and subpoint are very helpful for keeping the flow organized.

- Sources and random statistics / "facts" are meaningless because anyone can make anything up. Use logic and reasoning to construct sound warrants that make sense and prove why your claims are correct.

- Tech = Truth? Just do not make anything up and then everything in the round will be true. Gut check and use logic / common sense to debunk false claims.

- Terminalize your impacts and be sure to weigh them: magnitude, probability, time frame, etc. If you can, quantify your impacts but definitely compare them qualitatively to the opposing team's.

- Tell me what the voters are. My RFD could be as simple as listing the taglines / numbers of the voters I voted on.

Theory

- Make sure your theory shell is complete and you touch on all necessary points so that I can evaluate it and vote on it.

- As stated above, run whatever theory you want, go for an RVI, etc. Just be prepared to defend why you are allowed to do so.

- When in doubt if there was abuse in the round, my advice to you as a debater (not as a judge) would be to read the shell.

Ks

- It should not matter whether or not I am familiar with the literature of your K because it needs to be explained clearly and thoroughly for the opposing team regardless. Do not skew the opposing team out of the round because of how you read your K.

- Outline the parts of your K very clearly and make sure your links are explained thoroughly.

3 Years Highschool PFD Debate

3 Years College Policy Debate

(Policy)

1. I'm fine with speed. Obviously if you're forcing it and sound off and you dont see me flowing then you need to slow down (which you and your partner should be observing anyway).

2. You will benefit greatly by slowing down on tag lines and reading plans, and flipping between flows.

(PFD + Policy)

I'm really big on the technical side of debate. That means clearly outlining and discussing the:

1. Impact Calculus

-Timeframe
-Magnitude
-Probability
-How your impacts relate to your opponent's impacts
-How these impacts actually happen, the full story behind them, paint a picture. ELI5

2. Links

-They do X so they link, is not a link.

-I weight links pretty heavily in arguments so I prefer when debates spend time to contextualize the links within the story of the debate

3. Uniqueness

-Usually not an issue but i've been surprised before, often gets assumed

4. Internal Link

-Im very skeptical of you just arriving at extinction. I mainly ran policy arguments so I know how ridiculously easy it is to just fit in 16 extinction scenarios in your constructed speech but I need to see that internal link debate fleshed out.

5. Open to any kritiks/performance but the above bullets apply even more so. I do not like when teams brush over the technical side of debate just because they arent running nuclear war. Arguments are still arguments and logic is still logic.

6. Framework - I lean towards debate being a game. That being said, there are obviously millions of ways to debate within that framework.

Anything else just ask.

Kurtis Lee

*Updated for TOC 2023:

Quick reference for prefs based on your strategy if you don't read anything: Case (1), K(2), Theory/FW(1), Phil(3), Tricks(4), Heg lol (1)

Background: Debated hs parli for 4 years with Los Altos. Last debated in 2019. I haven't done anything related to debate for a few yrs now (other than periodic judging) so I won't be well versed with whatever's popular - be clear and explain.

In general, I will evaluate almost every position and be willing to vote on it, so just debate what you want and make sure it's well articulated. If you think you have an interesting argument that will make the round fun, read it! I debated with Shirley Cheng for the most formative parts of my time in debate, so her paradigm pretty much lines up with how I view things: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=24626

My method for evaluating rounds is very similar to the paradigm above so this is copy pasted from there: for me defensive responses on an arg function as mitigation to the risk of the arg happening (ie I'll be more skeptical of the arg and I will evaluate this as the arg having very minimal risk of happening. Depending on how good the defense is, the risk will differ of course, but it's rare that I will believe an arg has 100% chance of not happening unless the other team straight up concedes it. Because this is how I evaluate args, weighing is super super super important)

Be accessible or I won't be against intervening

Some other notes:

General:

Call point of orders, but I'll try to protect.

Signpost, slow on tags, repeat interps.

New in the block means I give the aff a lot of credence in answering it - that being said, 2a theory will probably be held to a higher threshold in terms of accessing golden turns

Claims require warrants. Warrants require explanations. I might be less willing to vote solely on blip claims/tricks without warrants and explanations if I can vote elsewhere.

Add sequencing questions in rebuttals and be sure to collapse. Super strategic and makes my evaluation a lot more straightforward. You rebuttal should be my RFD + any preempts.

Case:

I essentially only read case in hs. It would help to have a strategic uniqueness and a good link/internal link scenario. Impacts should still be fully impacted out. Ex: better economy means very little to me while extinction means a lot.

While I will default magnitude absent any weighing, I tend to prefer probability weighing if it's given to me. For me, that comes from the link debate. Link defense can serve as mitigation of the probability of an argument as stated above. Explain how different arguments interact with the links and what that means for my evaluation. Flag specific things in the last speeches especially.

Case turns only would be interesting to watch.

Theory:

Down for theory debates

I could be convinced that pics, condo, etc are good or bad.

Nebel T against super small squarely affs would be a fun strategy to watch if you can properly explain it.

Will default competing interpretations

Seems recently in parli, there's been a lot of 2a theory and even 2n theory :// In that case, please layer and order - otherwise it's an even larger mess.

What if all T interps were read as a POI in the 1A?

Split the ballot theory is cool if you both need a 1-1 split at TOC

Ks:

I was not a K debater, so I don't have much background in the lit. I was mostly around methodology Ks, but you can read whatever you want. Regardless of what you read, still make sure explanations are clear and explain jargon.

If you read a K from a backfile and don't have any idea what it says, it will be clear, and I will find it really easy to drop you.

I think nontopical Aff Ks specifically should be disclosed. If they aren't, I'm sympathetic to disclosure arguments and probably have a lower bar for T or other theory arguments. Note this is distinct and doesn't apply to defending the topic and deriving critical impacts + framing. In general, the further you are from defending the topic, the more sympathetic I am to t-fw.

Assume I haven’t heard of your lit.

Debate, IE & Related Experience – Policy debate and extemp in high school. Policy debate during first two years of college, and then IE (extemp, impromptu, persuasive, informative) during last two years of college. Taught public speaking classes to undergraduates while attending law school. Civil litigation attorney having done numerous depositions and trials as well as many pre-trial, trial and appellate arguments.

Judging Experience – Prior to the last two years, judged IE at some state & NSDA district tournaments. In the last two years, have judged at over a dozen (mostly parliamentary debate and a few IE) tournaments throughout the country.

Behavior – Competitors should treat each other fairly and with courtesy and respect at all times.

Speed – While I do have experience participating in and flowing “spread” policy debate, my preference is for -- at most -- a relatively quick but still conversational pace. Anything faster seriously risks detracting from persuasion and comprehension.

Arguments -- One strong and well-developed argument may outweigh multiple other arguments = generally favor quality over quantity. Using metaphors and other imagery (and even sometimes a bit of well-placed humor) may strengthen your arguments. Effective weighing in the rebuttal speeches may often affect the decision.

Roadmaps And Signposting – Pre-speech roadmaps tend to be heavy on jargon and of limited use. In-speech signposting, however, can significantly facilitate the effective presentation and transition of arguments.

Points Of Information – While I value the potential impact that POIs may have, I do not have any minimum number of POIs which need to be asked or answered. I would prefer though that at least the first 1-2 reasonable POIs -- if asked -- be responded to briefly at or relatively near to the time of asking, as opposed to refusing to take any POIs or vaguely promising to respond later “if there is time.”

Points Of Order – A POO is necessary if you want me to consider whether a new argument has been made in a rebuttal speech. After the POO pro/con argument has occurred, please plan to continue the rebuttal speech since it is unlikely that I would rule on the POO before the end of the speech.

I am a lay judge, so I will decide based on my understanding of your arguments. If you use jargon, please explain. Explain your case clearly; your warrants should include what it means and what the impacts are. If I cannot understand you (spreading), I will be not be able give you credit for your arguments. Please be respectful, speak clearly, number your arguments, and provide organized, logical arguments. Good luck!

Hi y'all! I am a former speech and debater for Bellarmine College Preparatory in the Coast Forensics League. I have finished my undergrad at UC Berkeley, studying Political Science and Philosophy. Although I have done speech for a majority of my four years competing in high school, I have done a year of slow Policy Debate and was a Parliamentary Debater during my senior year of high school. I am now an Interp coach at Bellarmine College Prep and a Parliamentary/Public Forum Debate and Extemp Coach at The Nueva School. These past few years, I have been running Tabrooms at Tournaments as compared to judging. And even if I have been judging, I am almost always in the Speech and Congress judging pool.

The tl;dr: Be clear, concise, and kind during debate. I will listen to and vote on anything GIVEN that I understand it and it's on my flow. Spread and run arguments at your own risk. Evidence and analysis are a must, clash and weigh - treat me as a flay (flow + lay) judge.

If you want more precise information, read the event that you are competing in AND the "Overall Debate Stuff" if you are competing in a Debate.

Table of Contents for this paradigm:

1. Policy Debate

2. Parliamentary Debate

3. Public Forum Debate

4. Lincoln Douglas Debate

5. Overall Debate Stuff (Speed, Theory, K's, Extending Dropped Arguments, etc.)

6. IE's (Because I'm extra AF!) (Updated on 02/13/2019!)

7. Congress

For POLICY DEBATE:

I feel like I'm more policymaker oriented, although I started learning about Policy Debate from a stock issues lens, and am more than comfortable defaulting to stock issues if that's what y'all prefer. I'm really trying to see whether the plan is a good idea and something that should be passed. Offensive arguments and weighing are key to winning the debate for me. For example, even if the Neg proves to me that the plan triggers a disadvantage and a life threatening impact, if the Aff is able to minimize the impact or explain how the impact pales in comparison to the advantages the plan actually offers, I'd still feel comfortable voting Aff. If asked to evaluate the debate via stock issues, the Neg merely needs to win one stock issue to win the debate.

Evidence and analysis are absolutely crucial, and good analysis can beat bad evidence any day! Evidence and link turns are also great, but make sure that you are absolutely CLEAR about what you are arguing and incredibly explanatory about how this piece of evidence actually supports your argument.

Counterplans - They're great! Just make sure that your plan text is extremely clear. If there are planks, make sure that they are stated clearly so I can get them down on my flow! Make sure that you explain why the CP is to be preferred over the Plan - show how and explain explicitly how you solve and be sure to watch out for any double binds or links to DA's that you may bring up! Counterplans may also be non-topical.

Topicality - Yeah, it's a voting issue. It's the Negative's burden to explain the Affirmative's violation and to provide specific interpretations that the Affirmative needs to adhere to. Further, if T is run, I must evaluate whether the plan is Topical BEFORE I evaluate the rest of the debate.

I'm not too up on most arguments on this year's topic, so again, arguments need to be explained clearly and efficiently.

For PARLI DEBATE:

In Parli, I will judge the debate first in terms of the stronger arguments brought up on each side through the framework provided and debated by the AFF (PROP) and the NEG (OPP). If you win framework, I will judge the debate based on YOUR framework. However, just because you win framework, doesn't necessarily mean that you win the round. Your contentions are the main meat of the speeches and all contentions SHOULD support your framework, and should be analyzed and explained as such. If it's a Policy resolution round, I tend to judge by stock issue and DA's/Ad's (see the above Policy Debate paradigm). If a fact or value resolution round, I tend to judge through framework first before evaluating any arguments that come afterwards.

Counterplans - They're great! Just make sure that your plan text is extremely clear. If there are planks, make sure that they are stated clearly so I can get them down on my flow! Make sure that you explain why the CP is to be preferred over the Plan - show how and explain explicitly how you solve and be sure to watch out for any double binds or links to DA's that you may bring up! Counterplans may also be non-topical.

Similar to Policy, by the end of the 1 NR, I should know exactly what arguments you are going for. Voting issues in each of the rebuttals are a MUST! Crystallize the round for me and tell me exactly what I will be voting on at the end of the debate.

In regards to POO's, I do not protect the flow. It is up to YOU to POO your opponents. New arguments that are not POO'd may be factored into my decision if not properly POO'd. POO's should not be abused. Be clear to give me what exactly what the new argument/impact/evidence/etc. is.

I expect everyone to take at least 1-2 POI(s) throughout their speeches. Anything short is low key just rude, especially if your opponent gives you the opportunity to ask questions in their speech. Anything more is a time suck for you. Be strategic and timely about when and how you answer the question.

For PF:

I strongly believe that PF should remain an accessible type of debate for ALL judges. While I do understand and am well versed in more faster/progressive style debate, I would prefer if you slowed down and really took the time to speak to me and not at me. Similar to Policy and Parli, I want arguments to be clearly warranted and substantiated with ample evidence. As the below section explains, I'd much rather have fewer, but more well developed arguments instead of you trying to pack the flow with 10+ arguments that are flaky and unsubstantiated at best.

For PF, I will side to using an Offense/Defense paradigm. I'm really looking for Offense on why your argument matters and really want you to weigh your case against your opponents'. Whoever wins the most arguments at the end of the round may not necessarily win the round, since I think weighing impacts and arguments matters more. Please make sure that you really impact out arguments and really give me a standard or framework to weigh your arguments on! So for example, even if the Pro team wins 3 out of 4 arguments, if the Con is able to show that the one argument that they win clearly outweighs the arguments from the Pro, I may still pick up the Con team on the ballot. WEIGH , WEIGH, WEIGH. I CAN'T EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH!Really explain why your impacts and case connect with your framework. Similar to LD, if both teams agree on framework, I'd rather you focus on case debate or add an impact rather than focus on the framework debate. Though if both teams have different frameworks, give me reasons and explain why I should prefer yours over your opponents'.

The second rebuttal should both focus on responding to your opponents' refutations against your own case AND should refute your opponents' case. If you bring up dropped arguments that are not extended throughout the debate in the Final Focus speeches, I will drop those specific arguments. If it's in the Final Focus, it should be in the Final Summary, and if it's in the Final Summary, it should be in Rebuttal. I will consider an argument dropped if it is not responded to by you or your teammate after the rebuttal speeches. For more information regarding extensions, please look at the "Overall Debate Stuff" section of this paradigm.

Please use the Final Focus as a weighing mechanism of why YOUR team wins the round. I'd prefer it to be mainly summarizing your side's points and really bringing the debate to a close.

Most of all, be kind during crossfire.

For Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Similar to PF, while I did not compete in LD, I have judged a few rounds and understand the basics of this debate. I am more old-school in that I believe that LD is something that focuses more on arguing about the morality of affirming or negating the resolution. The Affirmative does not need to argue for a specific plan, rather, just needs to defend the resolution. However, I have judged a handful of fast rounds in LD and do understand more progressive argumentation from Policy Debate. I have also judged policy/plan centered LD rounds.

So there's framework debate and then we get to the main meat with contentions. With the framework debate, I'm open to essentially any Value or V/C that you want to use. If you and your opponent's Value and V/C are different, please provide me reasons why I should prefer your Value and V/C over your opponents. Weigh them against each other and explain to me why you should prefer yours over your opponent's. Please also tie your contentions that you have in the main meat of your speeches back to your Value and V/C. For example (using the anonymous sources resolution from 2018-2019), if you're Neg and your Value is democracy and your V/C is transparency because the more transparent news organizations are the more accountable they can be, your contentions should show me that in the your world, we maximize transparency, which allows for the best democracy. The best cases are ones which are able to link the Value and V/C seamlessly into their contentions.

If you win the framework debate, I will judge the debate based on YOUR framework. However, just because you win framework, doesn't necessarily mean that you win the round. Your contentions are the main meat of the speeches and all contentions SHOULD support your framework, and should be analyzed and explained as such.

If you and your opponent agree with V/C and V, move on. Don't spend extra time on stuff that you can spend elsewhere. Add an impact, add a DA, add an advantage, add a contention, etc.

By the time we get to rebuttals, I should have a decent grasp about what voting issues I will be voting on in the debate. A lot of the 1 AR should really be cleaning up the debate as a whole and weighing responses by the Neg with the Aff case. 1 NR should really spend a lot of time focusing on really summarizing the debate as a whole and should give me specific voting issues that the debate essentially boils down to. Feel free to give voting issues at the end of throughout your speech. They usually help me crystallize how I will be voting.

I usually decide the winner of the debate based on which side best persuades me of their position. While this debater is the one which usually wins the main contentions on each side of the flow, it may not be. I usually think of offense/defense when deciding debates! As a result, please WEIGH the contentions against each other, especially when we get into the rebuttal speeches. Even if you only win one contention, if you are able to effectively weigh it against your opponent's contentions, I will have no issue voting for you. Weigh, weigh, weigh - I cannot emphasize this enough!

***Here's an example of how I decided a round with the Standardized Testing resolution: The AFF's value was morality, defined as what was right and wrong and their V/C was welfare, defined as maximizing the good of all people. The NEG's framework was also morality, defined in the same was as the AFF's but their V/C was fair comparison, defined as equal opportunities regardless of background. Suppose AFF dropped framework, I would then go on to evaluate the debate under the NEG's Value and V/C. AFF had two contentions: 1. Discrimination - Standardized testing increases discrimination towards low income and minority communities, and 2. Curriculum - standardized testing forces teachers to teach outdated information and narrow curriculum thus, decreasing student exposure to social sciences and humanities. NEG had two contentions: 1. GPA Inflation is unfair - standardized testing allows for the fairest comparison between students since GPA could be inflated, and 2. Performance Measurement - the SAT accurately measured academic performance for students. Thus, in making my decision, I would first ask, how do each of the contentions best maximize fair comparison and thus, maximize morality. Then I would go down the flow and decide who won each contention. I do this by asking how each argument and responses functioned in the debate. For example, did the AFF show me that standardized testing discriminates against people of color and low-income households? Or was the NEG able to show that adequate resources devoted to these communities not only raised scores, but also ensured that these communities we better prepared for the exam? Another example, was the NEG able to prove that if colleges no longer accepted standardized testing scores, would grade inflation result in impossible comparisons between students? Or could the AFF prove that grade inflation would not occur and that there would be heavier reliance on essays and not GPA? After deciding who won which contention, I analyze the debate as a whole - Was the GPA contention outweighed by other issues throughout the debate? (ex: Even if NEG won the GPA Contention, did AFF win the other three contentions and prove that the other three contentions outweighed NEG's winning contention? Or if AFF only won one contention, did that ONE contention outweigh any of the other contentions the NEG had?) Ultimately, the winner of the debate is who BEST persuaded me of their side through each of the contentions brought forth in the debate.

I'm also totally fine with policy type arguments in an LD round. However, while I did do a year of slow Policy Debate and feel more comfortable evaluating these type of arguments, I think that Policy and LD Debate are two different events and should thus be treated as such. Unless both debaters are comfortable with running Policy Debate type arguments in round, stick to the more traditional form of debating over the morality of the resolution. If both debaters are fine running more policy type arguments, go for it!

Overall Debate Stuff:

I'm kinda stupid - write my ballot for me. It is your job to help me understand complex arguments, not the other way around. Don't expect me to understand everything if you're spreading through an argument and you can certainly not expect me to vote on an argument that I don't understand. In other words, "you do you", but if it's not on the flow or I don't understand it, I won't vote on it.

Speed - Consider me a slow lay flow judge. While I can handle medium-slow speed, I'd prefer it you just spoke in a conversational manner as if you were talking to your parents at the dinner table. If you want to run a Kritik, Counterplan, Theory, etc. go ahead and do so, just make sure that you say it in a speed I can understand it in. Remember, if you go too fast to the point where I just put my pen down and stop flowing, your arguments aren't making it on my flow and I will not vote on them. I will yell "SLOW" and "CLEAR" a maximum of three combined times in your speech if you are going too fast or I cannot hear/understand you. If you see me put my pen down and stop flowing, you have lost me completely. Moreover, try to avoid using fast debate terminology within the round. I may not be able to understand what you are saying if it all goes over my head.

Truth v. Tech - I feel like I have a very rudimentary understanding of these terms, so if you are a debater who loves running K Arguments, Theory, 10+ DA's, likes to spread a bunch, and is unwilling to adapt to a lay judge, do us both a favor and strike me. I run a very fine and nuanced line with truth v. tech. I feel like I'm slightly tech > truth, but ONLY SLIGHTLY so. I will do my absolute best to evaluate the round solely based on the flow, but I do think that there are arguments that are just bad, like (generically listing) "racism/homophobia/ageism/poverty good" or just linking everything to nuclear war. Let me illustrate this with an example:

The Neg tries to prove that an excess of immigration within the United States will result in Trump starting a nuclear war against country "x" as a diversionary tactic because he is losing his hardline immigration battle. Personally, I do not believe this will happen, but if this is the only argument left in the round and the Affirmative drops this and the Negative extends this throughout the debate, I will have no choice but to vote Neg to prevent more lives from being lost. However, if the Affirmative is able to show me that nuclear war will not occur or can effectively delink or turn the Negative's argument of nuclear war or can outweigh nuclear war (i.e. benefits of passing plan outweigh the possibility of nuclear war, which only has a close-to-zero percent chance of happening), I will be more inclined to believe that the Affirmative has won this argument based on any evidence/turn they give me, but also based on what I personally believe will happen. I will not arbitrarily insert my own beliefs into the debate, but if the debaters create a situation in which that case occurs, as with the example seen above, I will be inclined to vote for the debater that has the more true argument and the argument that makes more sense logically with me.

Tabula Rasa - As seen with the example above, I'm not Tabula Rasa. I really don't think that any judge can truly be "tab," for who am I to decide what is true? Again, I won't arbitrarily insert my beliefs into the debate, but if the debaters have an argument that I believe is "true," I will be more inclined to buy that argument unless a team convinces me otherwise. In other words, there exist arguments that I am more likely to agree with and arguments I am more likely to buy and vote on. Either way, I will evaluate the round from what I have written on the flow. Furthermore, take these examples:

The Affirmative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of California while the Negative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of New Mexico. In making my decision, I will side with the latter based on outside knowledge and because it is the argument I think is more "true" based on outside knowledge.

The Affirmative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of California. The Negative does not respond to this claim. While I do not think that the Affirmative's claim is true, the Negative does not respond to this argument and thus, I will consider the Affirmative's argument as valid and evaluate the round as such.

Judge Intervention - Take this as you will, but I strongly also believe that I as a judge should not arbitrarily intervene during the debate and should listen to the arguments presented in the round as brought up by the debaters. So like what I wrote under the Policy Debate part of the paradigm, go ahead and run whatever argument you want. As long as I understand it, I will put it on my flow. See "Speed" and "K's/Theory" portion of this section for more information about what arguments you should run if I'm your judge. It is ultimately a debater's job to help me understand their/his/her argument, not vice versa. Moreover, I will not weigh for you - that being said, if neither team runs arguments that I understand and neither team weighs, I will be forced to intervene.

~~~

Brief note: OK, so I get that the non interventionist approach contradicts the fact that I am more inclined to vote for an argument that I think is "true." As a judge I can promise you that I will flow what I can listen to and will evaluate the round holistically. I am an incredibly nuanced person and I think my paradigm reflects this (perhaps a little too much)...

~~~

PLEASE CLASH WITH ARGUMENTS! CLASH! CLASH! CLASH! Don't let the debate devolve into two boats sailing past each other in the night. At that point, it's completely pointless. I'd also prefer fewer well developed arguments over that of many arguments loosely tied together. Please don't brief barf or pack the flow with pointless arguments which aren't well developed. I may not include undeveloped arguments in my RFD if I deem that they are pointless or unimportant to the debate overall. Also, over the course of the debate as a whole, I would prefer fewer, but more well developed arguments, rather than a ton of arguments that go unsubstantiated.

Tag-Team CX/Flex Prep - I'm fine with this, just make sure that you're the one talking for most of the time. Your partner can't and shouldn't control your time. It is your Cross-Examination/Cross-fire after all. Same with speeches - essentially, don't have your partner be constantly interjecting you when you are speaking - you should be the one talking! If it seems as if your partner is commandeering your cross-examination or speech time, I will lower your speaks. Also totally fine with flex prep - you may use your prep time however you'd like, but since this time is not considered "official" cross-ex time, whether or not the opponent actually responds to the question is up to them. While I do not flow CX, I do pay close attention and if I look confused, I am more often thinking intensely about what you said, rather than emoting disagreement.

Roadmaps + Overviews - Please have them, and roadmaps may absolutely be off-time! I literally love/need roadmaps! They help me organize my flow make the debate/your speech a lot easier to follow! There should be a decent overview at the top of (at the minimum), each rebuttal - condense the round for me and summarize why you win each of the major arguments that comes up. Don't spend too much time on the overview, but don't ignore it.

K's and Theory - I'm not familiar with any literature at all! While you may choose to run K's or Theory (it is your round after all), I will do my very best to try and understand your argument. If I do not understand what you are saying, then I will not put it on my flow or vote on it. If you go slow, I will be more inclined to understand you and flow what you are saying. Again, not on the flow/don't understand = I won't vote on it.

Conditionality - This is fine. Though if you decide to kick anything, kick it earlier in the debate, don't wait until the 2NR unless it is strategic to do so. Please also make sure that your arguments are not contradictory - I have had to explain to teams about why running a Capitalism K on how the government perpetuates capitalism and then also running a CP where the Federal Government is the actor is ironic. In any case, kick the whichever argument is weaker and explain why Condo is good. Also, don't advocate for an unconditional position and then proceed to kick it or drop it. That would be bad.

Cross-applying - Don't just say "cross-apply my responses with Contention 1 on the Aff Case with Contention 2 on the Neg Case." This doesn't mean anything. Show me specifically how you group arguments together and explain how exactly your responses are better than your opponent's. Moreover, show me how your cross-application effectively answers their arguments - Does it de-link a disadvantage? Does it turn an argument? Does it effectively make Aff's actor in the plan powerless? Does it take out a crucial piece of evidence? What exactly does your cross-application do and how does it help you win the debate?

Dropped Arguments + Extensions - In regards to dropped contentions, subpoints, or impacts, I will personally extend all contentions, arguments, impacts, etc. that you individually tell me to extend. For all those arguments that were not extended and were dropped by the opponent, I will NOT personally extend myself. You must tell me to extend all dropped arguments or I will consider it dropped by you as well. All dropped contentions, subpoints, impacts, etc. should not be voter issues for the side that dropped it. I will drop all voter issues that were stated in the rebuttal if they were dropped by your side.

I did Interp, so my facial expressions will be turned "on" for the debate. If I like something, I will probably be nodding at you when you speak. Please do not feel intimidated if I look questioned or concerned when you speak. It does not show that you are losing the debate, nor does it show that you will be getting less speaks. However, if I seems like I am genuinely confused or have just put my pen down, you have lost me.

In regards to all debates, write the ballot for me, especially in the rebuttal speeches. Tell me why you win the round, and weigh arguments against each other!

ALSO, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, and SIGNPOST. The easier you make it for me to follow you in the round, the easier I can flow and be organized, and the easier you can win. Trust me, nothing's worse than when you're confused. KEEP THE ROUND CLEAN!

Don't be a jerk. It's the easiest way to lose speaker points. (Or even perhaps the round!) Good POI's/CX Q's and a good sense of humor get you higher speaks.

Links/Impacts - Be smart with this. I'm not a big fan of linking everything to nuclear war, unless you can prove to be that there is beyond a reason of a doubt that nuclear war occurs. So two things about impacts/links - the more practical and pragmatic you can make them, the better. I'm more inclined to buy well warranted and substantiated links to arguments. For example:

Plea bargaining --> incarceration --> cycle of poverty (These arguments are linked together and make logical sense. If we added "nuclear war" after "cycle of poverty," I'll just stare at you weirdly.)

Second, truth v. tech also applies with impacts and links, so if the Aff brings up a nuclear war will be caused by Trump as a diversionary tactic due to more immigration, and the Neg refutes that logically by taking out a link, I'll probably buy their argument (see the truth v. tech example I give). If the Neg doesn't respond, then the argument is valid. However, if the Neg is able to essentially group arguments and respond to them while weighing and shows me that even if they didn't answer this argument, Neg wins most everything else, I may still vote Neg.

I firmly believe that debate is not a game. It is an educational opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and to communicate efficiently between groups of people. Please don't try to make debate more complicated than it already is.

In regards to evidence in all debates: Yes, you need it - and should have a good amount of it. I know you only get 20 minutes to prep in Parli, and that you're not allowed internet prep (at some tournaments). But I need you to substantiate all claims with evidence. It doesn't have to be all subpoints and for every argument, but I will definitely be less inclined to vote for you if you only have one citation in the 19 minutes you speak, while your opponents have 7+ citations in the total 19 minutes they speak. Do not give me 7 minutes of analytics with no evidence at all. More evidence = more compelling. That being said, make sure that you also have a very strong amount of analytics as well. Don't just give me a lot of evidence without good analytics. Good analysis props up evidence and evidence supports good analysis. I would also much rather have a 4-5 good/solid pieces of evidence over 10+ trashy cards that don't help your case or add much to the debate. Essentially what I'm trying to say here is that good analysis > bad evidence any day, any round, and QUALITY > QUANTITY!!!

Do not CHEAT and make up cards, or clip cards, or anything of the like. Just don't. I will give you an automatic loss if you choose to do so. (Please don't make me do this...)

Time yourselves using whatever method you feel comfortable with! iPhone, SmartWatch, computer timer, etc. If you are taking prep, please announce it for me and your competitor to hear. Flashing or sending documents does not count as prep, though this needs to be taken care of in an expeditious manner. If you are caught abusing prep time, I will tank your speaks.

WEIGH - WEIGH - WEIGH!!! This is SO IMPORTANT, especially when debates come down to the wire. The team that does the better weighing will win the round if it's super tight! I won't weigh for you. Make my job easy and weigh. Again, as pieced together from previous parts of the paradigm, even if a team drops 3 out of the 5 arguments, if the team is able to show that the two arguments they do win outweigh the 3 arguments they lost, I will be more inclined to vote for that team that does the better weighing. I also love world comparisons, so weigh the world of the Affirmative and Negative and tell me which one is better for society, people, etc. after the implementation or non-implementation of the plan!

I will not disclose after the round (if I'm judging in the Coast Forensics League)! I usually disclose after invites though, given enough time. Either way, if you have questions about the round, please feel free to come and ask me if you aren't in round! I'll make myself visible throughout the tournament! If you can't find me, please feel free to contact me at xavier.liu17@gmail.com if you have any questions about the round! Please also feel free to contact me after the tournament regarding RFDs and comments!

FOR IE'S:

Ok. Now onto my favorite events of Speech and Debate. The IE's. First, I did Interp for a lot of my years competing, specifically DI, DUO, and OI. I've also done EXPOS (INF) as well. Take the Platform Events paradigm with a grain of salt. While there are many things that you could do to get the "1" in the room, I am particularly looking at several things that put you over the top.

PLATFORM EVENTS:

For Extemp (IX, DX) - I will flow your speech as thoroughly as I can. Please expect to have CITATIONS - at the minimum: news organization and date (month, day, year). An example: "According to Politico on February 13th of 2019..." If you have the author, even better - "John Smith, a columnist for Politico, writes on February 13th of 2019..." Please note that fabricating or making up citations or evidence is cheating and you will be given the lowest rank in the room and reported to Tab. You must have strong analysis within your speech. This analysis should supplement your evidence and your analysis should explain why your evidence is pertinent in answering the question. Good evidence and analysis trumps pretty delivery any day. Most importantly, make sure that you ANSWER THE QUESTION - I cannot give you a high rank if you do not answer the question.

For Impromptu (IMP) - I will flow your points as thoroughly as I can. I expect to see a thesis at the end of the intro and two to three well developed examples and points that support your thesis. While you do not have to have citations like Extemp, I would like to see specificity. Good analysis is also important and you need to make sure that your analysis ties into the thesis that you give me at the top of the intro. I also don't really like personal stories as examples and points in the Impromptu. I feel like personal stories are really generic and can always be canned. However, if done well and tied in well, personal stories do enhance the Impromptu! Use your discretion during prep time to decide if you want to use a personal story in your speech and how effective your personal story is. I also give bonus points and higher ranks to originality rather than canned speeches. Most importantly, make sure that you clearly develop your points and examples and explain why they apply to your thesis. I will default to California High School Speech Association (CHSSA) rules for Impromptu prep - 2 minutes of prep, with 5 minutes speaking - unless told otherwise by Tab/Tournament Officials.

Time signals for Impromptu and Extemp: With Extemp, I will give you time signals from 6 minutes left and down, Impromptu from 4 left and down. 30 seconds left will be indicated with a "C," 15 seconds left will be indicated with a closed "C," I will count down with my fingers for the last 10 seconds of the speech, with a fist at 7 or 5 minutes. I will show you what this looks like before you speak so you know what each signal looks like. With Impromptu prep, I will verbally announce how much prep is left: "1 minute left," "30 seconds left," "15 seconds." I will say "Time" when prep has ended. If I forget to give you time signals: 1. I fervently apologize; 2. This is probably a good thing since I was so invested in your speech or getting comments in; 3. You will NOT be responsible any time violations if you go overtime because it was my fault that you went overtime in the first place. #3 only applies if I literally forget to give you time signals; ex: I give you a time signal for 6 minutes left, but not 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1. If I forget to give you a signal for 4 minutes left, but get everything else, you're not off the hook then. I will also not stop you if you go beyond the grace period. Continue speaking until you have finished your speech.

For Original Advocacy and Original Oratory (OA/OO) - I will be primarily concerned with content. I will be looking for establishment of a clear problem (harms) and how that is plaguing us/society (inherency), and then I will be looking for a solution of some sort to address this problem (solvency). There must be some combination of these three in your speech. I will also be looking for evidence, analysis, and a strong synthesis between the two. Good speeches will have solid harms AND will explain how the solution solves their harms. Delivery should be natural, not canned or forced and facial expressions should not be over exaggerated.

For Expository Speaking/Informative Speaking (EXPOS/INF) - Again, primarily concerned with content. While Visual Aids (VAs) are important, they should serve to guide the speech, not distract me. That being said, I do enjoy interactive VAs that not only enhance the piece, but make me think about what you are saying. While puns and humor are both important, jokes should have a purpose in guiding your speech and enhancing it, and should not be included for the sole purpose of making anyone laugh. While I think that there doesn't necessarily need to be a message at the end of the speech, I should most definitely be informed of the topic that you are speaking to me about and I should've learned something new by the end of the 10 minute speech. Transitions from aspect to aspect in the speech should be clear and should not leave me confused about what you are talking about.

General Stuff for Platform Events:

1. Content > Delivery (Though I did Interp, so delivery is pretty important to me as well. Kinda like a 60-65% content, 35-40% delivery.)

What I have below is taken from Sherwin Lai's Speech Paradigm for Platform Events:

2. Projection and Enunciation are not the same as volume.

3. Repetitive vocal patterns, distracting hand gestures, robotic delivery, and unneeded micromovements will only hurt you.

4. Pacing, timing, and transitions are all important - take your time with these.

5. Natural Delivery > Forced/Exaggerated

6. Time Signals for OO, OA, and EXPOS - I am more than happy to give time signals, but since I am not required to give time signals for these events, I will not hold myself personally responsible if I forget to give signals to you or if you go overtime. It is your responsibility to have figured out time before the tournament started.

INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I am most well versed in DI, OI, and DUO, but as a coach, I've worked with DI, OI, HI, POI, OPP, and DUO.

For Dramatic Interpretation, Dramatic Duo Interpretations, and Dramatic Original Prose and Poetry (DI, DUO, OPP) - Subtlety > Screamy, any day, any time. I'm not against screaming, but they should be during appropriate moments during the piece. Emotions should build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For Humorous Interpretation, Humorous Duo Interpretations, and Humorous Original Prose and Poetry (HI, DUO, OPP) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. What I mean by this is that you should be thinking throughout your piece. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For Programmed Oral Interpretation, Prose Interpretation, and Poetry Interpretation (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality.

For Oratorical Interpretation (OI) - Please err on the side of natural emotion over forced facial expressions. I am not a big fan when speakers try to force emotion or simply convey no emotion when speaking. Script selection is obviously a big deal in this event. Choose a speech with a promising and important message and see if you can avoid overdone speeches.

General Stuff for Interpretation Events:

A lot of this and my Interpretation paradigm is very much similar to Sherwin Lai's Speech Paradigm. He and I agree on a lot of things, including what I will write below.

1. Subtlety > Screamy - I tend to enjoy the small nuances of emotion. Build the emotion throughout, don't go from "0 to 100 real quick." Don't force emotion.

2. "Acting is reacting." - Each movement and action should have a purpose. Swaying or distracting micro-movements are bad. When one character or partner says something or does something, there should be a reaction from another character or by the other partner. Watch what is happening and react accordingly.

3. Let the eyes speak. Eyes are underutilized in Interp - I feel like everyone is so focused on facial expression and eyebrows/body language, that they forget about the eyes. Intensity can be portrayed in absolute silence.

4. If I am not laughing during your speech, it's not because it's not funny. I am just super focused on you and watching every little part of your blocking and your facial expressions.

5. Please watch body position - misplaced feet, hands, or mistimed blocking is a big no-no.

6. No blocking > bad blocking - you don't need to be doing something ALL the time. Sometimes, standing still and doing nothing is better than always doing something.

7. Use pacing and timing to your advantage.

8. Quality of cut is fair game.

9. Message of the piece - I don't think that there necessarily needs to be a super strong message to the piece itself. I'd be totally fine if the piece was literally 7 short stories that were interwoven together and each story had it's own little thing going on. I'm more concerned about the performance/technical blocking itself. That being said, if I literally do not understand what is going on in the piece, we have a big problem. Exception to this is OI.

10. THINK!!!!!!!! And do not let the energy wane!

11. Time Signals for DI, HI, DUO, OPP, POI/POE/PRO, OI - I am more than happy to give time signals, but since I am not required to give time signals for these events, I will not hold myself personally responsible if I forget to give signals to you or if you go overtime. It is your responsibility to have figured out time before the tournament started.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I have only judged Congress a handful of times, so please take what I write with a grain of salt.

In regards to speeches, I do not value speakers who speak at the beginning of a session more than those who speak towards the end, or vice versa. Opening speeches and the first couple speeches (around 2-3 on each side) afterwards should set up the main arguments as of why the chamber should be voting in favor or against the piece of legislation. After the 5th speech on each side, you should really be clashing with arguments, impacting out both evidence and analysis, and weighing arguments against each other. Rehashing arguments made by other Congressional Debaters or "throwing more evidence" as a response to arguments is unimpressive.

During cross, if you just toss around random questions that do not actually pertain to the debate, your ranks will suffer. Remember to attack ideas and engage with the speaker who just spoke - save the argumentation for the speech. If you get the other speaker to concede something and you are able to use that in your speech, ranks will go up.

Respond to the actual links or the claims themselves and convince me why your claim is stronger. I welcome direct responses and refutations to another Congressperson's arguments, though please make it clear whom you are responding to and what the argument is. For example: "Next, I would like to refute Rep. Liu's argument that this bill would disadvantage states in the Midwest."

I'm a big stickler for Parliamentary Procedure, which means that if you are a PO, mistakes will be costly. Further, if you are acting like a biased PO, favoring certain speakers or debaters over other, you will be dropped.

Also, please note that "motion" is a noun. "Move" is a verb. So it's not: "I motion to adjourn." It would be: "I move to adjourn." PO's, remember that you cannot "assume unanimous consent" - a member of the chamber must ask for unanimous consent.

~~~

Feel free to ask me any questions about the paradigm, both speech and/or debate before the round begins. Or feel free to email me questions about my paradigm at xavier.liu17@gmail.com.

If you are confused about the RFD/comments I have written for either speech and/or debate, please also feel free to contact me whenever you'd like to at the above email.

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!! GO. FIGHT. WIN.

1. For a dictionary of terms used in my paradigm (or otherwise common in parli), click here.
2. I don't judge often anymore, but if I do, I'll put my paradigm back up temporarily.

TL;DR: call the Point of Order, use impact calculus, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I'll vote where you tell me to.

I will go over my paradigm at the start of a debate round, but generally I accept any form of argumentation if presented correctly.

If you'd like feedback from me regarding a verbal or written RFD I gave you, please feel free to reach out at hmalek@windwardschool.org and I'd be more than happy to help.

FOR TOC 2023

First of all, congrats on making the TOC and best of luck; it's an accomplishment to be here so try your best and have fun! I've been out of debate for a year, but have been nearly fully removed from the community so I'm not very updated with the new meta, strategies, etc. With that being said, that doesn't change my judging philosophy. I'm still down to listen to anything and will vote on it if won. I've bolded the important sections of my paradigms for prefs, but if you still need a pref sheet, here's something you can use:

1 - Case, T, Theory, Ks, K Affs

2/3 - Tricks, Phil, Lay Debate

tl;dr

read whatever you want, be respectful to your opponents, and collapse in the back half/rebuttal speeches

i prefer technical debate

Longer Version

evhs '22

I was primarily coached by Luke DiMartino and Trevor Greenan. My paradigm is extremely similar to theirs, so if you feel that any part of this paradigm is unsatisfactory in terms of giving you the information you want, refer to theirs

Tech > truth, for adjudicating debate rounds. In parli, I will not fact check anything; I expect that you have integrity and will not lie about sources. If I wind up judging any carded debate event, I will most likely read some evidence, but the decision I make will be mostly based off of what you say in the rebuttals, your extension and spin of the ev, and overall just technical debating. I will not hesitate to intervene if you are being disrespectful to your opponents; racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, misgendering, or anything violent won't be tolerated. I don't mind if you postround with me, just please make sure you're respectful.

I don't have any argumentative preferences. I'm comfortable with evaluating standard advantage vs da/cp debates, theory debates, k's and k affs. I am not super comfortable with tricks, phil positions that are popular in LD, and super dense process CPs. My go to arguments by the end of my debate career were a buddhism k aff, spec shells, the cap k, a baudrillard k, t-fw against k affs, topicality, and ofc advantages and da/cp strats. I have more familiarity with these types of args but hold no biases. Anything goes in front of me, as long as you win it on the flow

Keep the flow clean. Number your arguments. Signpost. I usually flow the 1NR (in parli) on a separate sheet, so tell me if you would like me not to. Give me clear roadmaps and tell me the sheets you are going on in order. I flow virtually now, so telling me where overviews are would also be appreciated so I can add cells. I should be okay with speed, but I've been out of flowing for a while so opt for 90% of your top. I will not give out double wins. You should time yourself. I will protect the flow as much as I can, but call the point of order if you really want to be sure. Please take at least one POI in your speech; it is deeply saddening that parli still doesn't have flex time at every tournament.

I'll decide the winner of the round by comparing the win conditions each team presents me with in the rebuttal speeches. Comparatively weighing all of the arguments you make is super important to me. Whether the debate comes to down to china war vs warming, or the perm on the cap k, comparatively explaining why your argument is stronger than your opponents will win in front of me. My goal in the round is to minimize my intervention. I will zero out my personal opinions and try and use only my understanding of arguments to try and come up with the decision. Regardless of all that, judge instruction and weighing are your best friends.

For case arguments, I care about uniqueness more than the average judge, and think that smart analytical defensive arguments can be fairly powerful. On the flip side, I don't find myself believing in zero risk. I default to utilitarianism but am open to other frameworks as long as you are specific as to how I can weigh impacts at the end of the round. The more abstract you are, the more explanation I'm going to need. Standard arguments like politics, bizcon, etc. are all fine, but a really good topic DA in parli will definitely make me happy.

Counterplan debates are good. I will default to all advocacies being conditional and will judge kick your CP if told to in the 2AC (or 1AR if I wind up judging policy or ld). Fine with pics, adv cps, agent cp's. Not up to literature on process cp's so if you do go for them err on the side of overexplanation. Sad as it is to admit this, I am probably a better judge for theory than for a perm debate, but if the perm debate is properly explained and not super dense I will be happy to adjudicate it. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and it will be really really hard to persuade me otherwise. Please send specific texts that are binding.

I frequently read theory and topicality and did a lot of nonsense with it, so I'm good with judging theory debates. I will most likely intervene on theory read in the 1AR for parli. Default to competing interps. I thought I figured out what reasonability was once and then forgot, so if you want to go for it please provide a brightline because I would prefer to not arbitrarily decide theory debates. Repeat interps, explicitly extend your voters, and please please please collapse. I enjoy good topicality debates as well; just make sure you have specific interps. Tricks like jurisdiction triggering presumption are fun, but don't lack on the substance of your standards and the true debatability of your interp. Once again, comparative weighing is super important. Weigh 1NC vs 2AC theory, weigh fairness vs education, weigh standards against each other. You are, theoretically, cultivating a "better" model of debate with your nonsense spec shell, so please weigh it against the counterinterp and tell me why your standards are better than theirs. My thoughts on theory are very similar to Trevors, so please refer to their paradigm for more specific explanation. Last thing here, is that I don't need in interp for things like "pics bad"; cp theory, floating piks bad, and all those arguments alike do not need interps for me to understand them, but if you are pressed for an interp then you should be able to provide one. Presumption is fire; please go for it (not even just in theory debates, all debates at this point)

I enjoyed kritiks more towards the end of my career, and find that good K debates are super fun. I think I have a passable understanding of most literature bases, but please err on the side of explaining your thesis and/or theory of power as much as possible. I care about framework more than the average judge; this is mainly cause I care about debatability a lot paradigmatically. However, I think strong framework arguments aid the negative more as I would feel completely fine voting on frameouts of the aff. I don't need a rotb, but if you do, just know that the rotb is nothing more than an interp and it will not mean anything to me if your framework arguments don't justify it. Specific links are good; alts doing and solving something is also really good. I think a compelling alternative should be able to resolve it's links. Aff teams should pick specific strategies. I am not fond of watching teams go for both hard right and soft left strategies against the K. Think about what your aff is saying, and then pick between link turn/perm or impact turn. Or invent a new strategy to beat the K, just make sure it lines up with what your 1AC is saying. I am not fond of K's bad theory, but if won i will vote on it.

K Affs are something I got into in the latter half of my debate career, and I really enjoyed them. For neg teams in this debate, don't go on autopilot. It's really easy to read the same fairness overview, and I would know cause I did this myself. Engage with the line by line because more often than not the aff probably has some compelling arguments. For aff teams, framework here, again, really matters. This is because I genuinely think you can win that your framework is an a priori in front of me. Regardless, smart counter interps are good, but so are impact turns. Just pick a strategy and align yourself with it. Back to the neg, I think it is very important to leverage your standards as turns to aff offense. Deeply questioning the sustainability of debate, as an activity, that isn't centered around competition or stasis will help you win my ballot. Additionally, creativity in arguments would be appreciated here. Fairness first gets boring after a while, and I say this as someone who went for fairness in nearly every framework round.

K v K debates: not much to say here. Compare frameworks and err on the side of over explaining. Judge instruction in these debates is even more important than in others. The aff probably gets a perm, but if you really dont want them to have one, make a theory argument.

Any questions, email me at mani.ayan2004@gmail.com. If you read through all of this, thank you. The debate space is yours and you should read whatever you would like. Have fun!

Hi, I'm April! Currently an Undergrad at UCLA; I did highschool Parli for all 4 years, qualifying to TOC for 3 and also compete sometimes on the college circuit, I went to NPDA so generally I know some stuff!

Overviews:

- In general, I will vote for anything if u win them including the most random stuff.

- I'm generally okay with speed but for online tourneys -> maybe go a bit slower; I'll slow or clear u if needed though so no worriesPLEASE SIGNPOST.

- speaks wise: I'm pretty chill on those, if u manage to sneak an "it be like that sometimes" into ur speech ill give u thirty speaks, any meme reference will also give u thirty speaks

- I'm tabular rosa -> if u drop sky is pink then I gotta vote for it

- I'll protect the flow if I think it's super new but otherwise pls POO but after like 2 or 3 POOs u can probably just go to the bathroom and stop pooing

- I default to presumption flowing neg unless the neg reads args (and goes for) reasons otherwise, or if they r mostly an advocacy not the squo but this would depend on how things r debated in round

Actual debate stuff:

Case:

-I analyze a lot of the round and case debate via an offense/ defense paradigm -> you must have unique reasons as to why you are winning and not just arguments about why the team is wrong

- Please have impact weighing -> tell me why u win on magnitude, timeframe, or probability

- Please have your uniqueness in the right direction! [neg should say squo good, aff should say squo bad]

- Please collapse

- Warrants are pretty important I guess it helps me analyze how weighing should generally go

CPs

-Have a reason why it's competitive!

- Pls give me solvency but not advantages to your CP, generally, you should have separate disads to the aff's case

Theory

- I love Theory! Run the wackest thing if you want I'm super down to vote on it if u win it

- Collapse!! I wanna see weighing!!! (Fairness vs education) stuff like that

- I default to competing interps but down for reasonability if u tell me why

- I also default to - dropping the team, theory being Apriori

- RVIs r wack but down to vote for them once again if u tell me why

basically, tell me why... (ain't nothing but a heart ache)

Ks

- I like Ks! I'd say im pretty familiar with most Ks (mostly familiar with MLM, Baudrillard, some OOO stuff, anthro) unless it's a new one but super down to hear them and vote for them

- Pls extend ur framework -> extend ur ROB, if its a K v K debate, pls engage with why ur ROB matters more etc. ; Also in generally layer your framing ie. tell me why ur ideas come first

- Give me implications of ur warrants and esp if ur giving me them as a refutation; if the revolution in the Philippines worked, that's great but tell me why I should care about that warrant as a response or as a reason why I should vote for your argumnt

- Not super comf evaluating identity Ks especially if they are personal I don't rly want to have to evaluate different ppls suffering for rounds lmfao but feel free to run it, just know that I'm probably not the best for understanding the implications of it etc.

Pls don't be rude, racist, sexist, etc. but u should probably know that already : )!

Feel free to ask any questions before the round starts!

for more details click here

I co-sign McKenna Peterson's paradigm pasted below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General: Debate is a game that is played to be won but it is also a game that can involve very personal components. So in round be respectful and inclusive. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise.

Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round.

Theory: I am good with anything. I prefer it when its used to actually check back for abuse in round and not just as a time suck but I am willing to vote on it regardless. I do not have a preference of the standards vs voters debate.

Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. Speaker points are awarded by the quality and competitiveness of arguments made rather than persuasiveness.

Just a few things:

1. I appreciate sign-posting and off-time roadmaps
2. Please be kind to each other and use POIs selectively

I was a Parliamentary debater for Los Altos High School (MVLA) who graduated in 2022. My partner was Richard Colgrove, who also graduated in 2022. 

TL;DR for Parli: I need to be convinced as to why you win the round, and I value organization, clear articulation of arguments, and weighing the most when evaluating a debate round.

My opinions on Parli change frequently, and I don't pretend to be experienced like a proper flow judge. However, these are my thoughts regarding Parli, just as every single judge has their own unique perspective that ultimately stems from to how they view the role of debate. As a current participant in the activity myself I am much more lenient towards any mishaps or mistakes that are made, and won't try to shark you or pounce on you for that. We all make mistakes, and are arguing policies and ideas that we often know little about, and are given 20 minutes to prepare for. Especially because Parli goes through many resolutions every single tournament, I don't expect every single one to be perfectly balanced. I am weighing the round based on what happens in the round, not post-round, pre-round, or in-between speeches. Especially for novices, there's a belief coming into the tournament that the judge will personally weigh in to evidence or arguments themselves (ex: one team might not see the necessity of responding to the other's argument because they dismiss it as "wrong" and hope the judge will figure that out for themselves). I need to be told why I should vote for you.

Speaking:

I'm fine with any speed as long as you're articulate.

Case Debate:

Signposting is key here. Disorganized cases only serve to delegitimize your actual arguments.

Don't make up evidence, it'll sink your case like the iceberg sank the Titanic. I'm not afraid to fact-check warrants that sound sketchy.

Weigh your arguments and explain how you interact with your opponent's case. This is debate, not speech, there should be clear points of clash in the round.

Being a student, I flow everything in the debate. Call a POO if an argument your opponent made in the final speech is new, because there's not always a change that I'll actually get to it. I am fundamentally opposed to intervention (I will not interrupt a speech or get involved with the debate myself. All clarifying questions, if I have them, will be asked at the end of the round).

I'm a judge that accepts CP's, I think they are good for debate and can help equalize the playing field when it comes to more sketchy resolutions. PICs or "cheater"-CPs are allowed, but so is Aff theory against it.

Theory:

If you run a T-shell, make sure the components are well-organized and you explain your opponent's violation. I'm unlikely to vote on frivolous theory.

Kritiks:

I will understand Kritik structure, and the Kritiks I'm most familiar with are Capitalism, Imperialism, and Security. Most others I will understand, but you'll have to do more work explaining them.

General Bio:

I'm Laura (she/her) I've competed in Parliamentary style debate for a little over 6 years and I've also done some coaching. I have good experience as a debater, not a huge amount of experience as a tournament judge so bear with me as I go through what I am comfortable with in a debate and what I generally don't like to see/wouldn't know how to flow.

PF or Parli:

Signpost, signpost, signpost. Otherwise I'll have no way to clearly flow the round.

I tend to dislike speed or spreading, its not something I've encountered in my debate league and I'm unfamiliar with it. If it is absolutely necessary, make sure you are clear and have a good roadmap.

I want to see in every contention a claim, warrant, and impact that is clearly signposted or otherwise stated in layman's terms. If I don't see this I will consider the case to be relatively weak.

If you are using theory or high theory in a round you should fully understand it and be able to explain it. I would also caution against that as I am not overly familiar with it and probably won't fully understand it.

I try to be tabula rasa but I do have my own biases, I'm a liberal arts college student so just take that in mind. I will generally privilege the human/social argument over realpolitik, etc. but that's not to say that I haven't debated like that or have never advanced debaters that do so.

Policy:

(some preferences for PF apply so keep that in mind)

Please explain all your acronyms and try not to speed too much, I won't understand it and I am unfamiliar with the jargon.

I am comfortable and happy with K debates.

I'm okay with Critical Aff, K, etc. however these all need to be explained very clearly to me. I'm a political theory major so I have read most common theorists and generally have a good grasp of them. I have some knowledge of common Ks, but I will need debaters help with clarifying these. I also generally prefer Ks that are less broad sweeping and a little on topic.

Counterplans are fine by me.

I love CX so be sure to use this time effectively, I won't flow the whole thing but it will make an impression on my decision.

Have clear impacts that are brought up throughout the round, don't forget points in the debate and don't be too in love with jargon.

I don't really want to be on any email chains unless you feel strongly about it. I'm just going to be flowing what I hear.

DON'T ( PF, Policy, Parli)

I don't want to hear racist, sexist, ableist, etc comments in my room. I don't care how knowledgeable you are in a round, you will automatically be dropped and reported.

I don't want to hear any extreme "devil's advocate" arguments that could cause offense to anyone in the room, don't make assumptions about anyone's identities or background. Remember that the topic we're debating could personally affect some of the people in the room on different levels, be empathetic.

(I will flow based on arguments rather than debaters unless instructed otherwise, call people in if you feel uncomfortable)

Generally try not to be too rude, although we've all been a little snarky in a debate I'd like to keep things civil and fun.

Please don't be super performative or emotional (?). This is just a personal preference but I'm not sure what to do with tears, etc. if they're not genuine they just feel odd. If you do genuinely feel upset and need to take a break please tell me.

DO's ( PF, Policy, Parli)

Be funny! I love when debaters regularly tell jokes in a round or make things light hearted and fun (where it is appropriate of course).

Please always remember to be empathetic of your competitors. I want to see cordial introductions and goodbyes at the end of the round, no rushing off!

Bio

Email for Link Chain: rmercedes@haverford.edu

Hello my name is Ruth Mercedes (she/her), I am a junior at Haverford College currently double majoring in Spanish and History. I have debated in Parliamentary for over 6 years and have a little bit of experience as a judge from my high school debate days. I recently taught a crash course in debate summer camp and am excited to be back in this world. In my free time I drink coffee and smell candles.

Spreading: I don’t like spreading and would prefer debaters who speak slowly and clearly. I am/was trained in a league that doesn’t spread so keep that in mind. If you do choose to spread, be sure to signpost clearly (however I cannot assure you that I will be able to flow your arguments effectively).

PF:

I am new to judging Public Forum, although it is similar to some formats of Parli I have done. If you have me as a judge in PF, please signpost your cases clearly. I am a tabula rasa judge, so assume no prior knowledge. Explain the content of your arguments, your claims, warrants, impacts etc. Essentially assume I have no prior knowledge of the topic nor debate itself.

Kritiks: As I was trained in Parli I am not super familiar with Kritiks. I think they are cool in concept and would love to see how that plays out. That being said, if you decide to run a kritik, know that you will have to weigh out everything very clearly for my benefit. If running a Kritik, explain your links, impacts, and alternatives.

Policy:

I tend to be a non-involved judge so when it comes to cards, I expect debaters to regulate.

Kritiks: see above

General Note: I will drop debaters who are excessively rude, make ad-hominem comments, are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. I also believe in disclosing results (depending on what the tournament allows), if you do not want to hear results please inform me at the start of the round.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20 years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit policy & PF. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

Public Forum Paradigm

Short Version

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts on your own case.
2. Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs in a timely fashion BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, I will be sad, any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
5. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
6. I'm OK w/ theory - IF IT IS DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

Long Version

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes conceded link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. Additionally, I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Two caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

5. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

5A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

6. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y").

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - I tend to come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This is the way to do that.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

7. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

8. Evidence citations

You should probably read the citations according to whatever the NSDA says, but I’m not likely to vote on any irregularities (e.g. no date of access) unless the abuses are proven to be especially egregious and substantive in the round.

9. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

11. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20 years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - they rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

Hi, my name is Rebecca and my pronouns are she/her. I would appreciate the following:

1. Talk slowly and clearly

2. Signpost throughout every speech

3. Off-time roadmaps

4. Avoid jargon (permutations, kritik, and theory)

5. A few good arguments delivered slowly rather than multiple weak arguments that are delivered too quickly

6. Be kind to each other

I look forwarding to learning with you.

For Zoom Debates: I may leave my camera on, but if it's off, don't worry; I'm still listening.

-I'm fine with speed.

-I love K debates, but have no objections to good "traditional" debates.

-I'm always ready, your partner is always ready, and the audience is always ready. Do not ask everyone this; it wastes time and it's saccharine and cutesy.

-I default to net benefits/CBA/util absent a framework provided by the debaters.

-I will vote on theory, and think it's likely that theory is an a priori issue. However, I'm open to arguments as to why theory isn't a priori.

-I will be familiar with the given topic literature. Moreover, I am highly familiar with K literature (basically every K).

-Don't talk over each other in cross-examination. Share cx time equally.

-I will vote you down if you're overtly discriminatory (ex. racist) in your arguments or your behavior in the round. In these instances, malicious intent is usually required, but not always.

-I'm fine with non-topical affirmatives and non-topical negatives.

-I'm fine with narratives, performances, etc.

-I will vote down arguments that are obviously morally problematic (genocide good, etc.).

-I'm open to arguments critiquing debate itself.

-I have a serious distaste for debaters who embrace this fashionable "bro-ey" style of delivery. This includes gratuitous use of the word "like" and the phrase "probably bad." Another example would be "yeah, so you affirm because of, like, Lacan." I think such behavior is more a sign of one's cultural capital in debate rather than a demonstration of effective argumentation.

-You need to give me the author, date, and related information *before* you read the evidence.

-I do not attach much weight to arguments making empirical claims in the absence of empirical evidence. In particular, I do not buy historical analyses that are not accompanied by evidence. You enter a debate round and then suddenly everyone's an expert.

-Peer-reviewed literature outweighs evidence from non-peer-reviewed sources absent a compelling reason why this shouldn't be the case (for example, arguments like "peer-reviewed articles are inaccessible to smaller debate programs" or "the knowledge production of the academy is ivory tower," etc.).

-I'm fine with cards that are about debate itself, unless they're written by your coach (have to punish bad debate practices).

-If you are incredibly clever in your approach to cross-examination, I'll reward you with high speaker points. My criteria for "clever" is anything that makes it tremendously obvious that your opponent does not know what they're talking about.

-I am entertained by references to Twin Peaks, "The Big Lebowski," as well as good imitations of Zizek. Such references won't give you any special benefits, but will entertain me.

I am former WHS debater and I now go to Berkeley

TLDR: I am a flow judge and evaluate tech>truth, I like evidence-based debates and will always evaluate evidence-based arguments and refs over every logical warrant unless you give me explicit reasons to do otherwise. If you are running a K you might want to refer to that part of the paradigm. I will also evaluate scientific evidence above all other types of evidence, I'll refer you to the K section if you want to know how this affects Ks.

Presentation:

If I'm judging you in person, any speed is completely fine. If I am not judging you in person please keep yourself to a speed that will let me comprehend you through zoom please don't spread your lungs out.

IDRC what you do just know that formalities are a waste of your time, you lose precious speech time every time you invoke a formality. However, signposting is not a formality, it is a MUST.

I dislike speaker points, they're ableist and bias breaks. I don't give 30 speaks like some judges but I will give you them based on how well you wrote your arguments

Because of the above, I don't care about "aggressive" debating. You can do whatever you want as long as you don't cause an equity issue or aren't rhetorically violent towards your opponents.

All texts in chat

Case:

This really should be like every other judge in parli debate. Evidence, warrants, impacts, extensions, etc. I like wide collapses because it gives me multiple reasons to prefer your advocacy. If you have a narrow collapse and it is a big-stick/round winner impact then I will obviously evaluate that above. You have to weigh impacts, if you don't you will lose. If both sides fail to weigh impacts, I will default to who wins their links.

- Constitutionality is NOT an impact, the constitution can be amended and changed.

Theory:

I am quite familiar with theory and a bit of a theory hack. I dislike lay theory a lot, don't try running it because it's really unclear what I'm supposed to do with it. If you are going to run theory, run it in Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters format. Theory is very viable when run correctly and I will not hesitate to vote on it. Also, extend your standards and make sure to do work on them because I often evaluate that before any major voter level arguments.

Some notes on Theory:

No Equity Violations should be established by your interp

If your opponent runs Trigger Warning Theory, just apologize and make sure to read trigger warnings in future speeches. I don't want people arguing against the concept of trigger warnings because that's not only morally reprehensible but it also sets a dangerous precedent. If you still do not read relevant trigger warnings after your opponent has asked you or has run theory on you, I will drop you and tank your speaks.

"Friv Theory" is completely fine and I don't really have an issue with it unless it requires your opponents to do something like take off their shoes which can make them really uncomfortable. Otherwise, it is just as valid as any other argument in the debate. Tricks are super fun to judge and make the debate interesting.

I default to competing interps over reasonability; No preference for Fairness vs Education; If you run a K and decide to leverage it against Theory, it needs to be extremely well done. (If you say that Fairness skews eval of the flow, I will not consider opposition arguments about pre-round equity unless they manage to explain how it also skews eval of the flow); I will not eval "spirit of the interp" arguments.

I evaluate RVIs and have a fairly low threshold for them.

Finally, I am perfectly fine with replacing the weighing mechanism/definition if both sides agree to it and won't penalize either side. It's not necessary to run theory in those instances.

Kritiks

TLDR: You have to run the K super super well, I don't really have a tolerance for bad/weak argumentation on the K level. This means that given the information you provide, your links and impacts have to make logical sense to someone who has never read the source material. Your alt solvency also has to be really well explained, Ks are an all or nothing here, if you run a bad K that makes no logical sense I will point out logical inconsistencies and give your opponent the win by default.

Familiar Lit Areas:

- Security

- SetCol

- Anthro

- Religion

- Cap

Just because I mainly know these specific Lit Areas doesn't mean that I won't evaluate any other K. I love new and interesting Ks with interesting ideologies/ important systematic issues to highlight.

I love Ks and love seeing them be debated but there are very important boundaries to not cross.

POMO

I don't like pomo. I can briefly explain why if you ask but I would stray away from most pomo, nietzsche is fine tho.

Identity Ks

Identity Ks are important in debate because they are used as survival strats by marginalized groups in this space. That being said I have 3 main notes about Identity Ks.

1. Every other judge has already said this but DO NOT RUN A K ABOUT A GROUP YOU ARE NOT PART OF. I will drop you.

2. Do not assume your opponent to be CisHet, this can cause forced outing, and attempting to do so will result in you being dropped

3. Attacking the concept of religion or highlighting its rhetorical violence is NOT the same as attacking members of a specific religion. The former is a valid argument, the latter is an equity violation.

K Generics

Read extensive framework; Bonus points if your framework allows your opponent to leverage their case which means more clash

I will evaluate Theory against Ks so be prepared for that

Links are pretty important and I don't like the Epistemic Skew argument very much because it nonuniques itself imo. This means you have to actually win your links substantially. I am also very receptive to the perm double bind.

If you have any questions, please ask them before the round or email me.

Parent judge, moderate experience with Parli and some PF, I maintain as detailed a flow as possible

Speak clearly and at a reasonable pace (don't spread!), signpost, limit jargon, etc. (if I don't understand you, it doesn't go on my flow, if it doesn't go on my flow, I'm not taking it into consideration)

Just saying cross-apply this with (x contention) is not a valid refutation in the absence of an explanation

Clearly state and weigh your impacts, provide clear logical links, POO any rules violations

Not super experienced with Ks or Theory, it is likely best not to run it with me and if you do, you must explain it well and in detail

I did speech and debate in high school and college and love seeing all of you engage in it as I know what an educational and fun activity it can be. Above all, I hope that you have a fun, educational, and constructive debate and that I can facilitate that to the best of my ability. Good luck!!

Fourth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.

I've coached and judged all major debate topics. I work most closely with our Congressional debate team, but also have experience judging PF, LD, and Parli.

PF: I think it's important for you to remember the goal of the event. Anyone should be able to walk into your round and follow the debate. With that said, I do flow and will try to give tech feedback as well as general commentary. I think some speed is ok in PF, but I think spreading absolutely does not belong.

LD: I am not a former debater myself; I really struggle to follow theory debate, K's, and spreading in general. I've learned a little about it over the past few years, but if you are a tech/theory/spreading team you should probably strike me (just being honest!). For all other levels--I will flow both framework and case and have voted on both. Try to be concrete in connecting your evidence to your claims. I've found that LD debaters can sometimes get carried away with "debater math"...and no, not everything can lead to nuke war. I am partial to probability arguments--I'm a realist at heart :)

Congress: As a teacher of Government & Politics, I really enjoy this event. You should always be roleplaying being an actual representative/senator. What would your constituents think about your speech? Why is your advocacy in their interest? I really like constitutionality arguments--we have a federal system, and sometimes bills being debated are directly in violation of those principles. Feel free to cite those Supreme Court cases all day. As you get later into the round, I will be highly critical if you are just repeating points from previous speeches. I want to see crystal/ref speeches later on--as do your fellow competitors, I'd presume.

Public Forum debate notes: The comments below are written with policy in mind. But the principles apply. I would suggest reading the whole thing but specifically the parts on qualification of evidence, education and accessibility. What I hear and record by hand on my flow sheet is the official transcript of the debate.

Background

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.

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. Overtime 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.

Evidence

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 qaulified 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.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

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

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses) and am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

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

tl;dr: I am open to almost any argument you want to read and will do my best to judge the round the way you lay it out for me.

Background

I’m a first-year at UC Berkeley now competing in NPDA as a 1A/2N and am currently coached by Amanda Miskell, Will White, lila lavender, and June Dense. I competed for EVHS for four years in NPDL debate as mostly a 2A/2N, but I have some experience with 1A/1N when I mavved at NPDI ‘21. My thoughts on debate so far have been mainly shaped by Trevor Greenan, lila lavender, Will White, Amanda Miskell, so feel free to check out their paradigms - I’ll probably evaluate rounds in a similar way.

General

My decision is based almost entirely and primarily on my flow (i.e. tech > truth), however if intervention is inevitable, I will try to find the easiest, least interventiony path to the ballot. In a similar fashion to Trevor, I will prioritize (in roughly this order): conceded arguments with weighing/framing, conceded arguments that are otherwise extended, arguments with substantive warrant analysis, arguments with implicit framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of. Speed is fine, although be mindful of “slow/clear” calls (see lila’s paradigm for the steph stew 2022 incident - I have very similar thoughts on speed). While I do protect, feel free to call your POOs.

Case

My 1ACs/1NCs for the first half of my career were typically two advantages or DAs with large uniqueness blocks and impact work. Given this, I tend to believe strong uniqueness and on the flip side good defensive analytics make arguments compelling. A structured approach to answering case arguments by section with an overview, signposting, and a good collapse is your best bet to beating back these arguments.

I default to fiat being durable, utilitarianism/net benefits as the moral framework, and counterplans being conditional, but am open to arguments to the contrary.

Read any counterplan you want, cheater or not, but I’ll also vote on MG theory here if it’s won.

Theory

Have fun - I lived for theory and I am generally a fan. Collapse to what is strategic - just bc you think I’m a theory hack should not mean you poorly collapse to theory for the hell of it. In fact, I now think bad or unnecessary theory collapses typically lead to a boringish debate compared to a similar quality K or case collapse (still means make strategic choices! if theory makes sense go for it).

My view on theory is that it boils down to case debate with a slightly different structure. This means UQ, links, impact analysis, and collapse should be a big part of any theory debate.

I default to competing interps, and need a good warrant to prefer reasonability + a brightline. Theory is you upholding a model of debate through your interp vs any counterinterp, so you want to do comparative standards and voter work in your collapse.

I did go for MG theory frequently in high school so I will respect your decision to read/go for MG theory, but poorly read multiple sheets in the MG will make me sad.

Kritiks

Since getting into NPDA, I’ve almost exclusively read variations of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) on both the aff and the neg. In high school, I got a lot more into kritiks in my junior and senior year, with a lot of Buddhism, and some MLM and Baudrillard. I find these arguments to be a valuable and fun tool in debate and am happy to evaluate these debates to the best of my ability.

Don’t assume I know your literature and esp in high school if ur reading smt nuts then take questions (it’ll help me too!).

Specific links to the aff are much more compelling than generic links or those of omission, which I will hold a higher threshold on.

I enjoyed K affs a lot more in my senior year and I’m down to hear them. I think FW/T is good when done well - I personally like the “we lead to better versions of ur aff bc truth testing is good” version more than the “drop them!! they didn’t fulfill their burden!!” complaining version but you do you.

Random Specific Thoughts Post NPTE 2023

Genocide seems pretty bad! The PMR seems to exist! Topicality and spec seem to be different things!

I have similar thoughts to Tim: The PMR should probably get to read new offense against the block’s rhetoric bc how would the MG predict that the block was gonna say slurs. IDK seems to make sense to me. And I will not randomly intervene to decide what rhetoric is “reasonably egregious” or not, ESPECIALLY if I’m a CIA-employed Zionist imperialist actor (to clarify which I am not). That seems pretty bad to me idk!

I have no idea wtf extending the perm means. I feel like if you want to extend a perm to get rid of an unconditional counterplan then you have to either read or pick some kind of terminal defense to get rid of your own competition. For example, you need to say “extend this defense” which means the counterplan doesn’t work and so the world of the counterplan solely is the status quo. Then if you extend the perm that makes sense to me because then the uncondo counterplan is the status quo so the world of the perm vs the CP is the same as the world of the aff vs the status quo. If you don’t do this then the only way you can get rid of offense on your counterplan probably seems to be actually kicking it. But I am slightly iffy about this so explain how extending the perm gets rid of the uncondo CP please thx.

Everything seems like fiat based on my understanding - if fiat is saying that we “should” do something and then imagine the consequences of that action then almost everything seems like it fiats an action. This also extends to the pre/post fiat distinction since either smt that is prefiat is saying their speech act has done something to change the world in which case I don’t know why I have to vote for you uniquely if that impact has already occurred, or my ballot will do something in which case the “pre” vs “post” fiat distinction seems mildly blurry to me but idk. This probably does not change the way I evaluate rounds, since I’ll assume the traditional fiat = policymaking fiat paradigm until someone tells me that fiat is what it rly is, in which case you can do a lot more weighing with the policymaking 1AC. This still doesn’t preclude framework analysis, in which case I will default to epistemic modesty over confidence (this means impacts = probability of ur framework being true x ur impact).

If you have any questions, feel free to message me on Instagram (@tejas.prabhune), Messenger (Tejas Prabhune), Discord (papaya#8124), email me at prabhune@berkeley.edu, or ask away before the start of round!

I’m very down to be postrounded at the above places as well - I encourage you to push me to be a better judge.

Hi, I am Kyle Pryor-Landman, my pronouns are he/him, my email is kpryorlandman@sdsu.edu, and I am the Director of Debate at SDSU. I competed in NPDA debate for 3 years and won some trophies, and now coach college and high school parli.

Thus the framework:

1. I can hang. Spread, talk slow, read a K aff, do policy, read MG theory (NO MUST PASS PLEASE); I am not partial to any form or lack thereof of debate. Just tell me why you win.
   1. I tend to prefer arguments that make sense. If you can't tl;dr your K or impact scenario, I am open to hearing arguments about why that is a voting issue. I can get down with D&G but when it starts to be from lit bases I am not familiar with, you'll start to lose me.
   2. K affs are cheating but that doesn't mean they aren't strategic. - Gabe Graville
2. I think that debate is a game, and games should be fun. This is why I uninstalled League.
   1. This includes not being an ass.
3. I probably won't evaluate speed theory unless the other team is being particularly egregious. I believe that "get good" is a valid answer to speed theory, particularly in open NPDA. This is probably the only thing I am highly skeptical of in debate as a whole.
   1. I am probably not the judge for you if you want to read arguments where your identity is up for my ballot. In the case that you do not want to take this warning, I will begrudgingly vote on the flow. If you read a performance, please garner offense from it. I am happy to evaluate performance, but please give me something to do with it. I am also happy to vote on identity-based arguments, just not where I am voting on a particular part of your identity.
   2. I am also not gonna vote for you if you read Schmidt or Heidegger. Nazis are bad.
4. I read an Among Us K and had debates about stick figure drawings. I prefer to laugh during a debate round and not have to be super serious because I am not a super serious person.
   1. I ran a wide variety of arguments in my time. It was mostly Cap, Heg (US and China mostly), FW-T, Afropess, Econ, Tix, and squirrely topical affs. I like these arguments, but that does not mean that you must read these to get my ballot. You do you.
5. That being said, cross-apply point 2a: if you start being violent towards anyone in the room or community. This includes but is not limited to: Being super aggressive during the round or cross-ex, intentional and/or repetitive misgendering, racial discrimination of any kind, or ableism. I will be 100% serious by not giving you a ballot to stop that rhetoric from proliferating, and your oral and written RFD will reflect that.
   1. I am sick of debaters weaponizing marginalized groups (especially black and queer folx) to win a ballot. Actually, advocate for their existence and inclusion instead of making dubious, offensive, and disingenuous arguments. It's 1) generally not an argument and 2) not something I will vote on. I will tank your speaks for this and I wholeheartedly encourage some of you to read a book.
6. PLEASE COLLAPSE IN THE BLOCK :D
   1. Also, collapse in the PMR. I like a clean story, articulated clash and voters, and a clear collapse.
7. Less important but I feel like you should know these:
   1. Topicality and FW are nice. Theory is meh. MG theory is even more meh. Condo and a-spec are fine by me.
   2. I am not particularly persuaded by theory positions that require positive action by either the aff or the neg.
   3. I like real arguments (Remember CDW?) - please read a warrant.
   4. I will be very happy if you do impact weighing. I will be very sad if you don't.
   5. If you read this far, you are probably not going to upset me in a debate round (which is a good thing!)
   6. If you ask me what my paradigm is immediately before a round I will be sad. I wrote it all out for you and you didn't want to read it. :'(

Cowardice is a voting issue. Say it with your chest. - Adeja Powell

TL;DR - Do what you want. I can keep up. Debate is about you, not me. Just make sure I can follow along.

Speaks: 26-30 unless you say a slur or something extra shitty. 30 being the best speech I have heard at the tournament, 26 being you did not include major portions of the debate, extremely unorganized, and/or no terminalization. < 26: You'll know because I'll tell you.

Parli: I'm a semi-novice judge; I've judged at 4 tournaments. I'm a research manager in my job which means I frequently develop insights with rationales & evidence. I am most interested in your logic and persuasion (vs facts and statistics). I'm not a "technical judge." Please keep your pace no faster than medium so I can fully comprehend your well constructed arguments. Thanks!

Extemp: I've judged one tournament with extemp rounds. I look for clear structure, elements that make your points relatable for "regular people" like me, evidence that links well to your claims and ability to pace well to get your full structure in during the time given.

Speech:I have more experience with Parli and less with Speech but I lean on my background in theater and improv to guide some of my observations. I got a minor in theater in college, I studied improv in Chicago and performed for 11 years. In interpretation events (e.g. POI, DI), I'm looking for cohesive themes that weave together your sources and ideas into a strong POV. I pay attention to thoughtful, appropriate movement that enhances your scenes. I'm looking for distinct characters with clear personalities conveyed through line delivery, vocal and facial expression, varying intensity. I appreciate the hard work it takes to be vulnerable and genuine. In Extemp, I'm looking for a well organized, logical plan showing your clear POV on how you are approaching the topic. I hope to see who you are shine through your analysis and delivery.

Parli Paradigm

Background

Currently Washington HS head coach.

I did parli and LD in high school, NPDA and BP in college, and I've been a debate coach since 2012.

Pronouns - he/him

Approach to judging

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

- I will typically vote on one specific argument which I come to believe is the biggest issue in the round rather than on a wholistic evaluation of your round performance. Use your rebuttal to tell me what that argument should be.

- If an argument could have been run out of the first constructive, don't wait until your second constructive to run it – this creates a truncated discussion of an argument. I will be sympathetic to PMR turns against new arguments coming out of the Opp Block. In short, each argument needs to be made on the first opportunity to make that argument.

- If there is new offense coming out of a second constructive which could not have been run out of the first constructive, I will cross-apply and weigh MOC arguments against PMR responses myself in order to offset the Gov getting the last word.

- I am not a fan of splitting the Opp Block, but I don’t think MOC and LOR should be identical. The LO doesn’t need to extend non-essential defense if the MO already made the responses. I give LOR some leeway on extensions: simply referencing an argument is fine, you don’t need to spend too much time extending MO warrants. In general, LOR should briefly extend chief pieces of offense and crucial defense and spend most of the time on big picture argument comparison.

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

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

- I prefer that argument extensions extend the warrant, not just the tagline.

- I will not vote on blips. The best - though not the only - way to ensure your argument isn’t a blip is to structure it.

- I prefer arguments that rely on common knowledge and logic. If there is a factual dispute, I will resolve it using my own knowledge or, if necessary, Google.

Argument preferences

- I like positional cases. This means that the Gov should have a specific plantext for policy resolutions or a thesis for fact/value resolutions. I welcome specification theory on vague plans.

- I enjoy listening to critical arguments with a clear and realistic alternative made by debaters who have read the philosophy behind them. I resent Ks that are intentionally obscurantist and meant to confuse opponents who don't have a background in critical debate.
"Reject" alternatives are mostly dumb. I prefer critical arguments to contain policy alternatives. Reading a K does not exempt you from the need to engage with your opponents' arguments. I don't like lazy generic links (e.g. "their actor is the government, so they're capitalist!") – adapt your K to the specific issues discussed in the round, don't just regurgitate arguments you dug up from policy backfiles. Reading a K also does not exempt you from the need to make quality warrants - just because some French philosopher agrees with you does not mean that you are right.

- For offense coming out of the PMC to be unique, it has to link to the resolution. For offense coming out of subsequent constructives to be unique, it has to link to either the resolution or to something the other team said.

- I prefer arguments that do not hinge on the identity of the debater or of their opponent. People should not have to out themselves in rounds.

- I am open to arguments that theory should be a reverse voting issue if the team that introduced the theory argument loses the argument. I default to reasonability over competing interps.

- Unless there is a debate over the round framework, I default to net benefits – specifically, the terminal impacts of death, dehumanization, and quality of life.

- Counterplans are very strategic. I don’t think the Opp should be able to fiat alternative actors, though I won’t go so far as to intervene against that. I prefer counterplans to be unconditional, and I default to assuming that they are unconditional unless you explicitly state some other status right after reading the counterplan text. The same goes for other Opp advocacies.

Presentation preferences

- Moderate speed is fine if it is used to present more in-depth arguments, but using speed as a tool to exclude your opponents from the round is not okay. If you try doing that in front of me, you will lose. If you want to go fast, take a lot of clarification POIs. If your opponents are going too fast, yell "Clear!" If your opponents or judges yell "Clear!" you should repeat the sentence you said right before that, and then either start enunciating better or slow down.

- Slow down on advocacy texts (plans, counterplans, theory interps, et cetera). I prefer that you give your opponents a written copy of your advocacy text. Lack of a stable advocacy text is a recipe for a messy round.

- I have a strong aversion to unnecessary jargon and intentional obfuscation. If your use of jargon makes it difficult for your opponents to engage with your arguments, I will disregard your arguments even if I myself am familiar with the jargon you are using.

- I will flow each argument (advantage, disad, framework, et cetera) on a different piece of paper. When signposting, indicate clearly when you are moving on to a new argument. Tell me in which order I should arrange my papers in a roadmap; roadmaps are not timed. Do not include any information in your off-time roadmap other than argument order. Don't give PMC roadmaps.

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

- Please avoid whispering to your partner during your opponents' speeches - it can get very distracting. Instead, pass notes.

- Stick to the time limits. Don't go over time in your speech. As soon as your opponent is done speaking, you should give a quick roadmap and then start your speech. Don't stall so that you can prep your speech.

- On parli decorum (pre-speech thank-you’s, shaking everyone’s hands after the round, etc) – I am not a fan. I won’t prohibit it, I just think it’s pointless.

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

I’m primarily parli these days, but the principles would apply to any form of debate I might judge.

I check all the boxes: successful, national circuit high school debater (policy/cross-ex); debate coach for over 25 years; tab director for over 20 years; debate league director for over 15 years; taught at a respected parliamentary debate summer workshop for 10 years. However, my career was in business, not education or the law, which does affect my point of view.

None of that is “actionable”, in that it is of no help to you if I’m sitting in the back of the room with my flow and stopwatch waiting for you to begin. The following may be more useful.

My role as a judge is to sort through the debate you and your opponent choose to have and produce a reasoned, persuasive decision. My “case” (RFD) should accurately reflect what was said and be acceptable to each of the debaters as a valid opinion on what occurred, even if they may take issue with that opinion.

This judge-as-debater approach has certain implications:

· My source material is the debate you choose to have. If you don’t agree on what it should be about, then my decision should be based first on your definitional arguments. If you do agree, then my decision should be based on the relative weight of arguments on the issue. If both teams agree—explicitly or tacitly—to have a particular debate, my opinion as to what the motion or debate should have been about is not relevant.

· The more work you do to lay out a path to a decision, the less work I have to do building my own, and the fewer decisions I have to make as the judge. That generally works in your favor.

· Your arguments should be based both on what you present and, perhaps even more so, on what your opponents present, with a fair comparison and weighing.

My business background has certain implications:

· Debate is intended to be educational. I have less sympathy for arguments that no one would make or consider in the real world. Theory arguments should be clearly explained and shown to have a serious impact on the matter at hand. The more distantly related an argument is to a plain reading of the motion, the greater the need to justify that argument.

· Not all arguments are equal. Judging is not simply counting arguments won, lost, or dropped, but comparing the persuasive weight of each side. I expect both sides will win some arguments and lose some arguments and drop some arguments. If you don’t weigh them, I will.

· Explanations count more than facts (at least explanations broadly consistent with the facts). For any arguable topic there will be examples that favor each side. The fact that some people survive horrendous accidents unscathed is not in itself an argument against safety equipment; that many will refuse to use safety equipment that is inconvenient or uncomfortable is, at least against that particular type.

· I don’t have a problem making decisions. I rarely take long or agonize over them. However, I will do my best to provide a detailed written RFD, time permitting.

Finally, debate is about the spoken word. It is your job to persuade me and in your best interest that I clearly understand what you want to say. It is not my job to be persuaded, nor to intuit what you intended to say beyond a reasonable effort on my part to do so. This has the following implications:

· Speak as fast as you think appropriate. I flow well and can tolerate speed. But if I don’t hear it, don’t hear it as intended, or don’t get it on my flow, it won’t help you. It’s not my job to signal you if you are speaking too fast or drifting off into unintelligibility.

· Why wouldn’t you present more arguments than your opponents can handle in the time allowed? Spread is a natural consequence of time limits on speeches. But 13 weak reasons why an argument is true won’t help you even if your opponent drops 12 of them, but wins the one most important to the issue. And debaters with more than one level of subpoints almost always get lost in their own outline. Quality spreads as surely as quantity and has more impact.

· I understand some debaters provide outlines, cards, briefs, etc. I will listen carefully to what you say, but I will not read anything you give me.

I have published a great deal of material of varying quality on the Connecticut Debate Association website, http://ctdebate.org . You will find transcriptions of my flows, various RFDs, topic analysis and general debate commentary reflecting my opinions over the years.

FAQs

Definitions? Definitions are a legitimate area of argument, but don’t ask me to rule on them mid-round. Gov has the right to a reasonable definition of terms. If Opp does not like them, Opp should challenge in a POC, POI or at the top of the LOC. Don’t wait to challenge definitions late in the round. Gov need not explicitly define terms or present a plan: clear usage in the PMC binds Gov and must be accepted or challenged by Opp. In other words, if it is obvious what Gov is talking about, don't try to re-define the terms out from under them. P.S. No one likes definition debates, so avoid them unless Gov is clearly being abusive.

Points of Clarification? Like them. Think it’s a good tactic for Gov to stop and offer Opp a chance to clear up terms. Should occur at the top of the PMC immediately after presenting definitions/plan/framework, etc.

Pre-speech outline or road map? A common local custom not to my taste. Speeches are timed for a reason, and I see this as an attempt to get a bit more speaking time. But, when in Rome… They should be brief and truly an outline, not substance. I will listen politely but I won't flow them.

New contentions in the Member constructives? Perfectly legitimate, though it was considered old-fashioned even when I debated 50 years ago. It also presents certain tactical and strategic issues debaters should understand and have thought through.

Counterplans? If you know what you are doing and it’s appropriate to the motion and the Gov case, a counterplan can be extremely effective. Most debaters don’t know what they are doing, or use them when there are less risky or more effective options available. Many counterplans are more effective as arguments why the status quo solves or as disadvantages.

Written material? I’m aware in some leagues debaters give judges a written outline of their case, or pass notes to the speaker. I accept all local customs and will not interfere or hold these against you. However, debate is by spoken word, and I will not read anything you give me.

New arguments in rebuttal (Point of Order)? You should call them if you see them. But if you see them every five words it begins to look like an attempt to disrupt the rebuttal speaker. Landing one good PO puts me on watch for the rest of the speech; multiple “maybes” will likely annoy me.

Evidence? Even in heavily researched debate like policy, facts are cherry picked. Even in the real world one rarely has all the facts. Explanations generally outweigh simple facts (though explanations that contradict the facts aren't really explanations). Information cited should be generally known or well-explained; “what’s your source” is rarely a useful question or counter-argument. I am not required to accept something I know to be untrue. If you tell me something I don’t know or am not sure of, I will give it some weight in my decision, and I will look it up after the round. That’s how I learn.

Theory? (See “business background” comments above, and "Definitions".) These are arguments like any other. They must be clearly explained and their impact on the round demonstrated. They are not magic words that simply need to be said to have an effect. Like all arguments, best present them as if your audience has never heard them before.

Weird stuff? Everyone in my family has an engineering degree. We’re used to intelligent arguments among competent adults. We know we aren’t as clever as we think we are, and you probably aren’t either. The further you drift from a straightforward interpretation of the motion, the greater your burden to explain and to justify your arguments.

Rules of debate? There are none, or very few. If your opponent does something you think is out of bounds, raise a POI if you can and explain the impact on the arguments or on the debate in your next speech. Most "rules" debaters cite are more like "guidelines". If you understand the reason for the guideline, you can generally turn a weak "that's against the rules" into a much stronger "here is why this is harmful to their case."

ejr, rev July 2023

I'm a former university debater and currently a post-grad student-judge with 7 years of experience in judging various debate formats. I have graduated high school last 2015. I have judged parliamentary debates (British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, and Parliamentary Debate) since uni, having judged 20+ parliamentary debate out rounds. I have extensive experience in judging other debate formats such as Worlds Schools, Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, IPDA, NPDA, and Congress. I also have extensive experience in judging speech formats as well such as Impromptu, After-Dinner Speaking, Poetry, Extemporaneous, Informative Speech, and Persuasive Speech. For more information, you may email me at mishaalcsaid@gmail.com

I'm okay with spreading.

Theory: I'm open to theory arguments being ran as long as they are tied back to how it is relevant to the resolution.

Kritiks: Openly welcomed given that they are linked to the resolution

Speed: I can track speeches regardless of pace and speed.

Complexity of arguments: I'm open to arguments of varying complexity.

Arguments and rebuttals of varying breadth and depth are generally welcomed as long as they are tied to the resolution.

I served as the president of Temple Debate for 3 years doing parliamentary debate. Therefore, I want to hear thoughtful arguments, not just those that depend on evidentiary standards. Finally, please speak loudly and slowly. I have slight hearing loss, and PF is a bit faster paced than parliamentary. Have a great round!!

Over 10 years of collective experience as both an NPDA college debater and coach.

Case: I mostly prefer case debates involving arguments surrounding the core topic literature of each side.

Theory: Theory is best used as a protection against abuse or your opponent attempting to gain *unfair* advantages. That said, I generally have a high threshold on theory debates and prefer theory be reserved for legitimately egregious situations.

Kritiks: K’s can be a useful strategic option assuming you have strong link arguments that connect well to the topic, and you are able to explain how your K controls the internal link to the harms of that particular topic.

Personal Identity: Please do not run personal identity based arguments in front of me as I very likely do not know you or your identity personally and cannot verify (or disprove) any of the claims you make about said identity.

General tips:

• Rebuttals are best used for comparison of impacts and warrants/supporting evidence.
  
  
• Impact out your arguments using Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, and Reversibility.

PF:

I did PF and qualled to gold TOC twice.

- if its not in summary it should not be in FF; extend links, warrants, and impacts please don't just say u can extend this

- Frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, defense is sticky but I will not evaluate offense unless it is extended and implicated

- speed is fine. if you will be spreading send me a speech doc (harishri2021@gmail.com)

- sign post please

- tech > truth

• Ks and theory are fine if you run it well and explain (do not do it just to confuse ur opponents)

*please for the love of god preflow before the round if I have to wait for you I will be spiced, possibly enough to drop ur speaks*

Parli:

• make me laugh
• do not make up evidence

Email: schmittkyla@gmail.com

Hey all—I'm Kyla. A little background on me: I'm a class of 2020 graduate who did speech and debate all four years of high school. Over the years, my main events were first PF and later Parli, but I also have limited experience with CX, BQD, impromptu, radio, and US extemp. In college, I do a debate format called CARD.

Now, onto what you really care about: I'll do my best not to vote on anything not said in the round—however, I will also probably not vote on arguments that I know to be blatant misinformation, nor will I vote for ideas that are explicitly bigoted. Still, it's your job as debaters to counter these arguments and call them out for what they are—especially if their misinformation/bigotry is not outward but more insidious—and I will make note of it on your ballot if you don't. Also, if you're going to read a Kritik, please make sure you are properly linking into your opponent's argument. Do not read me a generic K just for the sake of reading a K, or I will probably vote on the other team's T-shell when they inevitably say it's bad for debate. Other than that, I'm open to all kinds of arguments—be creative!

In your last speech, try to be clear about why you've won. Voting for you becomes harder when you don't give me explicit reasons to do so; make it impossible for me not to. Substantive voters, impact calc, or comparing worlds are a few great ways to do this.

Especially for CX debaters but also for everyone: please don't assume that I remember every convention of your format; in some instances, it's been several years since I've competed in or judged a certain debate format. Thus, explain to me what arguments you're making and why they matter; don't just throw out a bunch of jargon. I can typically do spreading, but I may need to slow or clear you. Please be respectful if your opponents ask you to slow or clear, too. Please signpost and be organized in your responses and extensions. We're all going to be tired, so make flowing easy on us!

Assistant at the Nueva School and Park City.

I competed in PF and most speech events for four years. I've been coaching since 2018 - mostly PF, but a mix of all events.

Please produce an email chain titled 'Tournament A Round B - Team C (aff) vs Team D (neg),' and add me to it:gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

I'm open to almost any strategy to generate offense. I'm just as happy to evaluate a critique of an argument is I am topicality.Theory debates will make me unhappy but you can certainly win that they're necessary and relevant on my flow.

I never did policy or LD debate and most of my coaching has been in PF. While I am open to any kind of argument, it is ultimately up to you to explain it with this in mind.

In any round, quality judge instruction is very helpful. It is much easier to evaluate a debate where both teams make one or two well-weighed arguments in the final focus than one in which the kitchen sink is thrown at me in every speech.

Debate jargon is bad word economy. Topic jargon is risky if unexplained -- my topic research varies month to month.

I'm a mediocre poker player. You'll know if I think something bad is happening. Follow the faces.

A reference to an argument is not the same thing as making an argument.I've grown increasingly stingy about extensions as I have grown old. Uniqueness, a link, and an impact have to be extended in summary and final focus on any offensive argument you expect me to vote for.

Make the round a pleasant, safe, and respectful venue for an educational debate. I will never vote on an argument that depicts or promotes self-harm of any kind. I will be hesitant to vote on arguments I perceive as structurally violent. It's very rare I have to intervene on such bases. All else equal, I'd give higher speaks to a debater who is funny in crossex than one who is overtly aggressive.

I politely request that you strike me if you do not follow NSDA evidence rules, including that all cited evidence must have a cut card associated with it at a minimum.

Thanks.

- pronouns: she/her

- background:

hii i'm anika! i'm currently a sophomore 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'm currently an assistant coach at MVLA!

please talk to me before the round if we have time/ are waiting for something/ someone. i do not want to sit there awkwardly. u can ask me about college or debate or life or tv shows idk just go for it

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.

- theory:

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.

- kritiks:

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!

good luck!

There is no grace time in parliamentary debate!! I stop flowing when your speech time has ended.

When I judge in person, I'm usually waking up like 4 hours earlier than normal, so I tend to yawn a lot during debates. Sorry if it's distracting, and I promise I am not getting bored or falling asleep!

General

These are all ultimately preferences. You should debate the way you want to debate.

For online debate: put texts in the chat for every advocacy/ROTB/interp. Texts are binding.

I'm okay with speed and will slow/clear you if necessary. If you don't slow for your opponents, I will drop you.

I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.

Please give content warnings as applicable. The more the merrier.

A safe debate is my primary consideration as a judge. Do not misgender your opponents. I will not hesitate to intervene against any rhetorically violent arguments.

If any debater requests it, I will stop a round and escalate the situation to Tab, tournament equity, and your coaches. I will also do this in the absence of a request if I feel like something unsafe has occurred and it is beyond my jurisdiction/capacity to deal with it.

Case

Weigh, interact with your opponent's arguments, and signpost!! I prefer when your weighing is contextualized to the argument you want me to vote on, rather than across-the-board generalizations of preferring probability or magnitude. Unwarranted links have zero probability even if they are conceded. Cross-applications need to be contextualized to the new argument.

All types of counterplans are game and so is counterplan theory. Perms are a test of competition. I have no idea what a neg perm is, so if you read one, you have to both justify why the negative is entitled to a perm and also what a neg perm means in the context of aff/neg burdens.

I would prefer it if you cited your sources unless the tournament explicitly prohibits you from doing so. If there is an evidence challenge that affects my ballot, I will vote before I check your evidence, and if I find intentional evidence fabrication, I will communicate that information to tab.

Theory/Topicality

Theory is cool! Please have a clear interpretation and have a text ready. I am happy to vote on whatever layering claims you make regarding theory vs. Ks. In the absence of layering, I will default to theory a priori.

I won't vote on theory shells that police the clothing, physical presentation, or camera usage (for online debate) of debaters. I will evaluate neg K's bad theory, disclosure, and speed theory as objectively as possible, but I don't really like these arguments and probably hack against them. Aff K's bad/T-USfg is fine. I will drop you for reading disclosure in the form of consent/FPIC theory. I'll vote on all other theory shells.

I default to competing interpretations, potential abuse > proven abuse, and drop the argument. To vote for reasonability, I need a clear brightline on what is reasonable. I am neutral on fairness vs. education. I'm neutral on RVIs, but I'll vote for them if you win them. I am good with conditional advocacies, and also good with hearing conditionality theory.

Kritiks

KvK is currently my favorite type of debate to judge. Rejecting the resolution, performance Ks, and framework theory are all fine with me. Please read a role of the ballot. If you are interested in learning more about K debate, please email me and I will send you any resources/answer any questions you may have.

Tech v. Truth

I default to tech over truth, but I probably lean towards truth more than your average tech judge. I'm open to arguments that say I should weigh truth over tech and disregard the flow when technical debate is sidelining disadvantaged teams. I think while technical debate can be a tool for combatting oppression in the debate space, skill at technical debate is definitely correlated with class, income, and whiteness. As such, I'm willing to hear arguments that ask me to devalue the flow in favor of solving a form of violence that has occurred in the round as a result of technical debate.

Miscellaneous

For speaker points, I give 27s as a baseline. I won't go below this unless you are violent or exclusionary. Please answer 1-2 POIs if there isn't flex.

My resting face and my frowning face are the same, and I have very expressive nonverbals– I recognize that this combo can be intimidating/confusing and I strongly urge you not to use my nonverbals as indicators of anything. I promise I don't hate you or your arguments, it's just my face!

Good luck :^)

I expect debaters to be courteous, which is to say I prefer 'our opponents claim of X is incorrect/flawed/incomplete because Y and Z' to 'claiming X is ridiculous', as both more civil and more persuasive. I appreciate when everyone keeps to time. Please do not resort to language that is discriminatory or disrespectful.

Debaters are free to inform me (or not) of their preferred pronouns when/as they choose.

I can follow a fast debate, but I prefer it when debaters speak at their own normal rate. I do not love speed for the sake of speed or jargon for the sake of jargon. If a team does not meaningfully slow down after being requested to do so (within reason), I will dock speaker points and be more forgiving of dropped arguments.

I have no objection to theory, but I expect the connection and relevance between the theory and the topic to be clear and convincing and in no way abusive. I generally dislike topicality arguments, unless the government's definition/framing is unreasonable. If teams introduce a weighing mechanism, I appreciate when they use it to weigh the competing arguments.

Overall, I judge each round on the cogency and strength of each side's argument as a whole rather than the quantity of evidence or arguments presented. For me the flow is to keep track of the debate, it is not the debate.

I did parli. in college and some judging then and more recently. I prefer to outline the debate to keep track of both the arguments and the structure of the debate itself.

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.

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu. Yes, I want to be on your email chain. Also, speechdrop.net is the superior file sharing platform.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, smart analytics, and 2AC/1AR theory. I tend to be less willing to vote on Ks or friv theory/T than most judges. I don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD), as long as your opponent can keep up. I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem with fast conversational speaking.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I hate powertagging and other forms of bad evidence ethics with a burning passion. If it is particularly egregious and raised as a voting issue, I will vote the powertagging team down.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. If you lie about being unconditional and the other team makes a voting issue out of it, I will vote you down. I default to the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. It’s difficult, but not impossible to convince me otherwise. I'm open to arguments that perms involving sequencing are unfair. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible unconditional alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I like anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) more than most judges.

While I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive, especially in extemporaneous formats like Parli. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

PF :Public forum was designed to be an event that is accessible to a lay audience and the community benefits immensely from having a slow, jargon free event. I’m vehemently opposed to spreading and progressive arguments (Ks, theory, topicality, plans, and counterplans) in PF. I’m fine with PFers who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation or who talk about rules or definitions when necessary in a non-jargon heavy way.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read 4 or are super contradictory.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). You should take some POI, but I won't look down on you at all if you turn away a point of information after you have taken two that speech (or it's protected time, of course). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

Background: I've debated for 8 years between high school and college (since 2015), mostly in Extemp & Amercian Parli. I have tons of experience competing, judging, and running tournaments.

Paradigm: Arguments that focus on weighing and logic are more persuasive than those that rest on statistics. Statistics are often biased; logic stands the test of time. I heavily value weighing mechanisms in rounds. A debater with a consistent vision in a round that carries through in all speeches is most effective. Accordingly, rebuttal speeches are very important and should consist of much more weighing than further argumentation. Really take the time to explain why your argument leads to a better outcome than your opponents'. This means that constructives should be extremely well-organized and easy to follow to set up rebuttal speeches in a way that does not make the round messy.

Other miscellaneous things:

1. Definition debates are the worst, I generally err on the side of gov/aff unless there is good reason not to (usually abuse that is called out by opp/neg);

2. Treat everyone in your rounds fairly and do not belittle arguments or speakers. Remember why debate is important: for education & in order to have a constructive conversation -- no side is inherently better than another;

3. Spreading is fine but signposting is always important (if you want to make sure I flow it--signpost it!) Everything you are going to complain to your team that I missed on the van ride home should have been in your voters.1;

4. And finally, theory shells should only be used if absolutely necessary and reasons for doing so should be explained in ways that apply to the specific round at hand (and not to all rounds in general).

Good luck!

Easter egg: If you use the phrase "dandy" in one of your speeches I will take that to mean that you read my paradigm and will be more inclined to bump your speaks. :)2

1 credit: preston bushnell & 2 inspired by: cara weathers

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

Background

I'm an experienced volunteer judge with quite a fair amount of recent parliamentary debate judging experience. In college, I was the captain of the Ethics Bowl Competitive Team, which focused on debating a broad array of economic, social, political, and philosophical issues. Additionally, I was an active member of the debate team (the style used was Lincoln-Douglas debate).

In addition to debate experience, I am a bioethicist with knowledge in metaethics; normative ethics; rules, rights, and codes of ethics, including medical codes of ethics; public health ethics; research ethics; the social ethics of medicine; and implementation of ethical policies and unintended consequences.

Professionally, my focus is on health care benefits and value-based employer health care purchasing strategies.

Judging Style

I track / flow every argument in writing, and as carefully as I can, in an excel flow chart.

I judge within “the reality created in the debate round.” For instance, incorrect facts will be accepted as the “working truth” within the round unless successfully challenged by a team. Please don’t knowingly make up facts or statistics for the sake of argument, though.

I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round, and will only infer an argument to a reasonable extent.

There are many ways to win a debate and I enjoy hearing, and am open to, all types of arguments and argument styles (complex, resolution, theory, kritiks, topicality, etc.). I weigh arguments qualitatively, on the strength, logic, and rationale of the arguments made. Debaters can win in a variety of ways from my perspective, including win by flow of main arguments, strategic framework (i.e., premise based), definitions, etc. Excluding abusive cases.

I do not let my personal opinions or beliefs impact how I assess the round.

Speed / Speaking / Signposting

I have heard many different ways of speaking / debating and am not opposed to anything in particular. I do not reduce speaker points merely for what I consider to be an individual’s speaking style.

That being said, I’m not comfortable with high-speed speeches as I find it difficult to keep track of arguments when someone is talking much faster than a person typically talks when trying to convince someone of something in the real world. Feel free to speak at 100mph, but consider this a fair warning that you risk me having to drop an argument because I simply could not capture it in the flow.

Signposting is preferred, but not critical.

Debater Expectations

I really enjoy hearing competitive debates where teams clearly want to win and are passionate about their arguments.

However, please keep things professional. Don’t harass or interrupt opposing teams (obviously, formal POIs and such are acceptable). Additionally, arguments should never devolve into personal attacks or rude comments.

Language that is sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. is not tolerated by me, or any tournament officials.

Pronouns: He/Him/His.

* 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.

Speaker points:

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.

Theory:

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.

Counter Plans:

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.

DAs:

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.

Kritiques:

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:

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.

Impacts:

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.

Framework:

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:

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.

Case:

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.

Evidence:

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.

Refutation consistency:

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.

Theory:

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.

Kritiques:

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.

Speed:

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.

Tobi is a student sometimes, a part-time oceanographer and an amazing adjudicator every day. If there is anyone to be referred to as one of the faces of adjudication in Africa, Tobi is one of your go-to people. With over 60+ breaks in tournaments, you can think about, Grand-Final and Semi Judge at about 25 including, PAUDC 21, Western IV 2022, and IIT Bombay 22. He has served as Language Officer at Campbelltown Australs, NEADC 22, SANUDC 22, and was on Appeal for Madrid WUDC 2023. He is the absolute definition of excellence meets hardwork. He is also the first West African to judge the Quarter-finals of the World Universities Debating Championship, Belgrade 22, talk about awesomeness. He was on CAP over 10+ tournament including, RRAC 23, Kampala Open 23, Debate A+ 23, Uganda National Team trials, Zimbabwe National Team trials and, Jozi Open, others. Outside of the debate room, Tobi is that sweet and soft guy you want on your corner everyday of the week. Always willing to help however he can.

I am a new parent judge. I am not a native English speaker. The debaters who are organized, speak clearly and at a conversational pace, and are able to explain their side of the resolution in lay terms, are most likely to win my ballot

Summary: I am a college debater and high school coach who understands the fundamentals of debate and loves hearing people argue.

Background:

4 years High School Parliamentary debate at Analy High School

1 year British Parliamentary debate at UC Berkeley

1 year Coaching at Berkeley High School

Judging:

I will flow the round and give the win based on which team can provide a more persuasive case. I am not a judge that will give you an auto-loss for not understanding the 17-step formula they expected you to know before the round.

TO WIN THE ROUND, YOU MUST:
1. Show up to the debate (hopefully)

2. Have good arguments

3. Explain why those arguments matter (the impacts)

4. Attack your opponent's arguments

5. Explain why your arguments are better than your opponents

While that seems simple, I've seen many rounds where most of those steps go missing.

Although I will be flowing the round, I will not be filling in the blanks for your case. If you'd like to make my life easier, please signpost as you speak, so I understand where you are in the round.

EVIDENCE ALONE DOES NOT WIN YOU ROUNDS. Stating evidence doesn't mean I will understand why it is essential to your case, nor will I understand its general warranting unless you can explicitly tell me.

Suppose there is an argument about definitions or weighing mechanisms. In that case, I am willing to be convinced by the team that provides me the most convincing reasoning on why theirs is fairer for the debate, but I generally never vote based on top-of-case.

Miscellaneous Jargon:

(If you need to spread, you may, but I would prefer if you don't. I can't vote for your side if I can't flow your arguments.)

Do not expect me to understand your Shells and Ks and Theory arguments (even though I likely will). I generally do not vote on jargon UNLESS it can be clearly explained why it is more important than the debate round you were assigned to defend.

Reminder:

You are a fantastic human who's trying your best, so don't feel bad if you make a mistake or lose the round :)

Above all else, I am interested in you showing me that you have listened to the opponent’s argument and shown me why your team has the superior plan, be it how we should orient ourselves in terms of our values, or how a government agency should carry out a specific proposal. I will be listening especially closely to the moments of clash. I will flow your arguments to the best of my ability and quickly summarize who I think won the debate and why. I will be weighing logos over pathos, but I want to hear a bit of both.

Secondly, I want to hear appropriate modulation in tone, pacing, and volume. I am interested in clarity. As an English teacher, I am probably more interested in these elements of rhetoric and style then the average judge.

I want to hear a clear moral philosophy guiding your value debates and all arguments, be they based on value, policy, or history.

Across Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Parliamentary, and Public Forum, I want to hear credible sources, compelling warrants, and impacts that appeal to actual governing bodies and issues in the real world.

I will be listening closely to the clash. A winner will be the person who shows mastery over all the arguments in the topic’s orbit, and who puts that mastery to work by either developing a compelling and unique case or showing why the status quo and your counter-plan offer a better path forward.

Don’t be a jerk. I will be docking points if you are unnecessarily rude to the opposition. I have little tolerance for bigotry of any kind. Let’s make debate an activity that welcomes everyone, no matter their gender, socio-economic standing, race, or sexual orientation.

Some notes on specific events.

• Policy & Public Forum - While I understand it is the norm to “spread,” I am more interested in hearing quality evidence and arguments rather than quantity. If you are speaking too quickly for me to understand, I won’t consider the contention.

• Lincoln-Douglas - I’m aware that some like to steer the argument always toward their philosophical area of expertise. If you are interested in K-debate, please be prepared to explain your positions in plain English.

• Parliamentary - Be respectful; I’m not really interested in hearing any heckling. If it seems you are using POIs to disrupt, I will dock points. I care mostly that you are able to listen closely and counter the opponent’s argument than your ability to summarize research.

• Speech Events - I will place a higher value on style. I like a bit of humor, but be careful to not be offensive.

Run what u want. Speed ok. weigh.

bkgrd: former Campolindo debater, won the toc in 2018

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

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

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

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

My name is Adam, I am an experienced debater (now college student) with more than four years behind my belt. Here are some of my tips for your round with me:

1) Please be respectful and attentive throughout the entire round

2) I am not a tech judge per se but greatly appreciate proper contention/advantage structure. The more organized you are, the more likely I will be to grant you the win. I crave a carefully crafted link chain.

3) IMPACTS ARE ESSENTIAL! A debate is won over impacts - make sure to allocate proper time to them in round.

4) Theory... it's alright. I appreciate the necessity of theory to keep rounds free and fair, but would rather not see the whole round become about it. Make your argument, and move on. I don't need to see a proper theory shell but please make it make sense.

5) SET A STANDARD AND STICK TO IT. I think standards are really important so don't forget to set one or to weigh your arguments against it during the round. If your opponent sets a standard you think is unreasonable, please suggest an alternative for me to weigh your arguments with.

6) I would rather you not bombard me with tons of evidence and facts. Parli is not about how many statistics you know or mathematical wizardry, but about logic and reasoning and argument. If your argument doesn't need statistics to be believed then I don't necessarily need to see them.

7) My flowing skills are good, but don't assume I have every little point down.

8) I much prefer a clear, slow, and precise speaker to a fast one who gets more points in. Debate is not just about arguments but arguing itself - thoughtful presentation and speaking is essential.

9) Have a good time! Debate is best when everybody is really engaged with and enjoying the glorious intellectual battle that it is. Appreciate the activity.

I debated parli for around two years for Los Altos. I'm at ucla now.

Speed: Don't worry about being too fast; you just need to be clear and coherent. I have attention span issues, so if you're going too slow, I might not understand your argument completely.

Organization: I prefer off-time road maps; I think they're a good way of helping both the judge and the debaters visualize the direction of cases.

Arguments: Any seemingly problematic arguments will be noted. These include any of the "-isms." I don't like Ks. Not because they're bad or anything, I just don't know what they are. :) Don't run Ks. I don't know them.

Things I value in the round: clarity, volume, and lots of sources. If you provide no warrants for a central claim you make, I won't write it in my flow and you'll risk low speaker points. If you have many warrants for many claims, high speaker points. Try not to be combative or patronizing with your opponents. Don't have your camera on and laugh/make faces during speeches; it's kind of distracting and a lil rude. Debate is fun, and the goal isn't solely to win but to be a better debater. If I see sportsmanship, I'll think about it when deciding speaker points.

treat me like a lay judge

TL,DR:

I value good arguments, persuasive speaking, and good clash. Don't exclude your opponents and don't run ridiculous arguments that harm the educational nature of debate.

Background

I debated for Berkeley High from 2015-2018, taught at SNFI twice, and coached for Berkeley High school.

Case

* I will default to net benefits

* Organization is key: tagline your arguments, signpost, and construct voting issues carefully

* Weigh your own arguments and explain why they matter

Theory

* Don't run unnecessary/frivolous theory, especially (!!) if it is intended to exclude your opponents

* Please demonstrate proven abuse (or have a very strong potential abuse argument) if you do run theory

Kritiks

* I am not a huge fan of Kritiks, so the bar is going to be pretty high to get a ballot from me on one

* If you decide to run a K in front of me, your opponents should also be down for a K debate and you should explain very clearly what the actual impacts are

Speaker Points

* I give speaker points based on clarity, strength of arguments, and persuasiveness (being funny/creative will boost your speaks)

* If anyone in the room (reasonably) needs to tell you to be clear or to slow down multiple times, your speaker points will suffer

---------------Most Recent Update: 3/26/2022 (NPDL TOC) -------------

TOC-Specific

TOC is the biggest opportunity for students to learn about different styles of debate. I expect y'all to try to learn. Refer to Luke DiMartino's section on "Ballot" for what I expect to occur when styles clash. Refer to Sierra Maciorowski's section on "Pedgogy" for my thoughts on technical accessibility. Refer to Sam Timinsky's section on "Lay vs. Flow" for my thoughts on tech v. lay in the debate community as a whole.

This is also the biggest opportunity for you all to connect with one another! Feel free to reach out to me (Facebook preferably) for my thoughts more deeply on issues (or, after the tournament, if you'd like coaching (NYC is expensive :( )). I am a huge debate nerd so I love it when y'all have a good time and enjoy this beautiful activity. Make friends! Have fun! :D

If you open-source your TOC prep you get automatic 30 speaks. Everyone should do it anyways....

No consistent coaching, but had intermittent mentorship from Trevor Greenan, Cody Peterson, Javin Pombra, Ming Qian, and Sam Timinsky. Philosophically similar to Esha Shah, Sierra Maciorowski, and Riley Shahar. Try not to pref both me and lay judges; splitting ballots at TOC leaves no one happy, and punting one of us will make both of us sad.... :(

My pronouns are on tab now; please use them and your opponents correctly! Will drop speaks for first infraction, will drop teams after that.

Background

I did parliamentary debate for 4 years w/ Cupertino, but I'm pretty familiar with LD and PF. Currently coach parli, extemp, and PF. Debated APDA a bit but wasn't my cup of tea. I was a 1N/2A if that gives you any indication of my biases for speeches.

I mostly went for K if I could, but good on T and fast case. For Ks I usually went for Daoism or Asian Conscientization. If anyone wants a rough copy of either of the Ks feel free to message me on FB or email me (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com). Tried to get K-DAs off the ground but didn't debate enough rounds for it to stick :( Also if you're from a small school message me or email me for a copy of my Small Schools K.

TL;DR

- be cool, have fun, dont be a jerk

- weigh lots, be clever

- no friv T, don't like tricks

- *not* a K hack despite my background. This is because I love Ks to death. If you are a *K debater* please pref me because I love a good K debate, but don't use a K just because you think you can get a cheap win. If you would like to get better at K debate, please pref me because I love teaching better Ks in parli :D

- seriously pleaaaaaaase be nice each other, it makes me sad when debaters get upset and debate should be fun!

Preferences

These are not hard and fast rules but general guidelines for you to see how much work you'll need to put in to win the argument. I have found that the farther I get from being a competitor in high school debate, the fewer real preferences I have and I could not care less about most issues. In other words, if it's not mentioned by name in the list below, I don't have a default and *will* flip a coin absent argumentation. If it was that important to your case, you should have mentioned it!

My number 1 preference is for you to try new things and have fun. My partner always said that if you're not having fun you're not doing it right, which I have always found to be true. Also don't be a jerk (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc) or you'll drop instantly.

I evaluate the round systematically.

1) Who is winning framework? How should I evaluate arguments at all?

2) Who is winning the layering/sequencing arguments? According to the debaters, what order should I evaluate the arguments? Absent that, I default to my stated defaults.

3) Who is winning offense on each layer? When I hit a layer where there's a clear winner, I vote for that team

General

- I AM A LAZY JUDGE. I will evaluate the ballot via the path of least resistance. In other words, I look at layers from top to bottom (e.g. K > T > Case, Advantage 1 > DA 2 > etc., etc.) and as soon as one layer isn't a tie I will just vote for whoever is winning that.

- Pleaaaaaase weigh. The team that does the best weighing will probably win the ballot. If you don't weigh the argument I'm not voting on it.

- Default to probability > magnitude. Bonus speaker points if you collapse to timeframe

- Unwarranted arguments will have very little weight in my mind; if I don't know why something is true I don't know why I should buy the argument

- Don't care if there's a source citation in parli

- Signpost: if I don't know where you are, I'm probably not gonna be able flow it

T

- Real-world education impacts are the way to my heart, default to Education over Fairness

- Not going to flow blippy, time-sink shells, no brightline needed

- Default to RVIs valid, but you need to read a particular brightline for the RVI to function

- Default to Reasonability (esp. Content Crowdout, though I don't think people run this anymore (if you do bonus speaker points))

- Don't use "small school" arguments unless you're actually from a small school or can justify how your program is disadvantaged. I'll give leniency on this but please don't be disingenuous -- and being on the circuit for so many years I think I've developed a good intuition.

K

- KNOW THE SOURCE MATERIAL WELL AND HOW IT ENGAGES ESPECIALLY W/ FOREIGN POLICY TOPICS: most K's (especially generics) are written with the US in mind and are *not* applicable to other places, be sure that the K functions elsewhere before you run it

- PLEASE PLEASE have good links that actually connect to the specific articulation of the Aff.

- If it's a funky K, go nuts, but please explain stuff (for the sake of me and especially for the sake of your opponents) or I won't know what you're saying

- K Affs are lit, just make sure there's actual ground for both sides (for all the Negs out there, email me if you want a copy of arguments against K Affs)

- If anyone manages to read a decent K out of the 2AC you'll get a 29.5 at least.

- If you read theory saying NEG Ks are not legitimate, I will drop you unless they completely mishandle it

- No alt = no UQ = not going to vote on it unless it's about harmful rhetoric

- Familiar with most Ks except for super pomo stuff. Don't read identity Ks unless you identify with the identity. I'm not sure what the place for identity Ks are in the debate space and I have not judged them enough or been engaged with the community enough to be educated but please be cool about them if you do want to read it and make sure there's an actual valid opposite side

- From Riley Shahar's paradigm: "I tend to think that debate is not the best space for arguments which are reliant on the identities of competitors. I am certainly willing to listen to these debates, because I know from experience that they can be necessary survival strategies, but making assumptions about other people’s identities is a very dangerous political move which can force outing and be counterproductive to revolutionary action."

Tricks

Go slow and explain them super clearly (probably defeats the point of running them but hey it's your round).

Speaker Points

Do work on 30 speaks theory, don't just throw it out there for the sake of it. Speaks are entirely assigned based on strategic decisions made in-round, don't care how you say it as long as you say it. 25 or lower for problematic speech/behavior.

APDA Specific

- default to beat-the-team on tight calls

- don't be purposefully obtuse in POCs or you're getting tanked (and I'll be more lenient on tight calls and case args)

- pragmatic > principle, but easily swayed

- run a K, run theory, run condo, go nuts, just don't call it that if it's against tournament rules

- please POO shadow extensions: if it's not extended in the MG, I consider it new (even if it's in the PMC)

Non-Parli

- I don't flow cross

- Read full cites or I'm not flowing it (in particular this is @ PF)

- Cards with warrant > cards without warrant = warrant without card > claim without warrant

- Bonus speaker points if you disclosed on the wiki

- PF: If it's in FF it needs to be in summary

- Add me to the email chain (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com)

Misc.

- Call "clear" or "slow" if you can't keep up; if you don't slow down enough when the other team calls it several times you're going to get dropped with tanked speaks. I will also call clear/slow as necessary

- If you say something blatantly untrue, I'm giving the other team the argument (the bar for this is very high though so just please don't lie)

- If you tell me to check the argument, I'll do it but I won't treat it as a "lie" unless it's egregious (in which case I can tell either way)

- Go slow on plans/CPs, interps, alts, etc. Have copies prewritten for everyone. For online tournaments, have texts in the chatright after you say them. We're online! It's so much easier to pass texts! (boomer grumblegrumble)

- For Points of Order, tell me explicitly which argument is new and why (if you're calling it) and where it was on the flow in which speech specifically (if you're responding). I will let you know whether or not I think it's new unless it's in outrounds. Trust me when I say that it is too much work (usually) to protect against new arguments.

- Virtual POIs: put them in the chat, please be mindful of the chat if you're the one speaking

- Tag-teaming: go for it, but both speakers must state the argument

Debate how you want to debate, and I will evaluate your arguments to the best of my ability.

important: have fun. yay.

If I flip a coin and it lands on its side (which apparently happens every 1/6000 flips for an American nickel), you will debate in Canadian National Debate Format instead of whatever format the tournament is in. Here's a link to a guide.
(This is generally for PF debates where there's a coinflip built into the format. I judge lots of parli now so sorry to any parli kids I confuse! Feel free to check out the CNDF format tho LOL)

I did PF and BP in high school, and have been coaching/judging since then. That being said, I'm studying neurobio+datasci in college so please don't expect me to remember all the IR/econ drama that goes on in the world :') If someone mischaracterizes a country's/individual's involvement in some global issue, it's better to call it out yourself than to assume that I'm aware of the mischaracterization.

I took bits and pieces of this paradigm from other judges' paradigms that I really like. Credit goes to Lauryn Lee and Kyle Kishimoto.

@ Parli kids: everything in this paradigm that isn't PF specific (cards/evidence, CX, etc.) applies to you.

Content

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name. I don't write down author names for cards and I'll have no idea what you're referring to. I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

I'm unfamiliar with theory and kritiks and I don't like voting off them. I am not the judge you want if you plan to run either of those.

Frameworks are cool but if you bring in a framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what you gain/opponents lose. PF speeches are too short for you to waste your time on a framework debate if winning it makes no difference in the overall decision.

Warrants + Evidence > Warrants > Evidence. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you. This also means that I prefer warrant comparison to evidence comparison. Evidence comparison should happen when the warrants directly clash and there isn't much of a way to evaluate them, or one side's evidence just sucks. But in general, comparative analysis is awesome and one of the best ways to win.

Saying the word "extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. I won't vote on anything that's not extended through summary and brought up in final focus.

Weighing needs to be comparative and specific. This means your weighing has to directly interact with the opposing team’s argument – you should be answering the question “If all of their arguments are given to be true, why do I still win the round?” Because of this, I don’t really consider attacking the truth of their argument as an effective weighing strategy – weighing assumes the arguments to be true. I also think more teams should do meta-weighing – why is your form of weighing better than another? Why is your argument that wins on probability stronger than theirs that wins on magnitude?

I listen to cross-ex but I don't flow it. If you get a concession from CX, it doesn't matter until I hear it in a speech. CX ends as soon as the timer goes off, and to pre-emptively address your questions, you may finish your sentence, but don't add another 4 paragraphs to your answer, or I'll drop your speaks.

Style + Misc.

If you’re gonna go Lightning McQueen on me you need to be clear and signpost properly.

I’ll give extra speaks for a tastefully savage remark. This is not an invitation to be rude.

If it takes longer than 2 minutes to find your card, I'm not counting it.

Debate is great :) I'd be happy to talk to you after the round if you want more feedback or you can email me at elizzhou@berkeley.com

i do debate yep.

CALL THE POINT OF ORDER. IT IS OK IF YOU ARE NOT SURE.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

why does tabroom have a thing to put emojis in but it can't show emojis

TL;DR: anything is fine cheating is bad, I'll judge whatever debate yall want to have. My opinions are mostly: uniqueness is really important, random stuff about how competing interps "works," and Ks aren't that different from case.

If you have questions about my paradigm, or my opinion on specific arguments, please ask. Please don't ask to shake my hand.

Anything here is a default in absence of argumentation, except intervention. If you're reading evidence fabrication as a performance please let everyone know lmao.

General

• I like debates where people make arguments. Those are pretty cool. I prefer more better arguments to less worse arguments. I adore moving symbols around on paper (though not across different sheets of paper, that one's not fun). If you are attempting to adapt to me on a lay panel, consider reading impacts that terminalize to QoL or preferably suffering/death/dehumanization, and also tending towards making and extending offensive arguments.

• I can handle a decent amount of speed. Tejas at full speed is too fast for me. Clarity is good. Just go as fast as you want until someone slows/clears you. I do not have a particularly negative view towards speed theory so like, idk lol just don't spread people out, although if you are able to/have had time to get better at understanding speed and are choosing not to, my sympathy decreases slightly.

• I might ask for texts in between speeches, which you can write off-time. Feel free to also ask for whatever texts you need. (please don't prep while you or opponents are writing texts)

• I do not protect. Call the point of order. I usually rule, and would much rather you call incorrect POOs than not call correct ones. The reason I do this is because I want the rebuttal speaker to have access to an off time not new justification.

• I think shadow extensions are new. “Extend the aff” is enough for me to not consider something a shadow extension, unless you explicitly chose not to extend a specific argument, i.e. specific still beats general.

• I think weighing that involves a sequencing claim/new IL is new.

• I don't actually enjoy voting on "you didn't POO the PMR saying 'lol we win' oopsie" but like, skill issue and I think it's better for it to be a skill issue than an outlet for me to intervene, which is definitely what I would do if I said "i'll kinda protect but err not new." If you call 2 POOs that I rule 100% correct (this doesn't work on a panel) I begin protecting and say so (if I forget, remind me lol - if I don't say so I'm not protecting because I forgot) - I don't think? this creates bad incentives, and like just don't make two new arguments if you want off time POO responses lol.

• I flow only the speaker and stop at time. I would appreciate it if someone used an audible timer. Tag teaming is cool if your partner is fine with it.

• I don't really believe you can "kick an argument": you can certainly extend/read terminal defense, but I think if you like get impact turned and try to just stop defending your links (and your opponents conceded your links in the previous speech), your opponents are allowed to try to extend your links. IDK if you can make an argument in your speech and then be like "actually judge ignore that": I'll default to yes but I'm open to arguments that you can't.

• If, after my RFD, you disagree with my decision (especially if you were on the team I voted up), I'm down to be postrounded at timothyzhu@berkeley.edu. Also if you need me to explain anything in my ballot or paradigm I can try my best (although it might take me a year to find my flow, I've stopped labelling them)

  • I'd appreciate being postrounded!!!!! if I just don't understand something or your evaluation of the round is different.

• I will disclose unless explicitly prohibited.

• I give speaks based on how much your speech(es) contributed to winning. If I think you 100% should break I will give you at least a 28.5.

• Ways I might intervene

• Accidentally (oops)

• Ur being racist or otherwise bad, though I’ll vote you down on the flow first and add that you would have lost otherwise

• You fabricate evidence - I will submit my ballot without access to the internet but fact check sus/sussed warrants afterwards and potentially attempt to flip my ballot if 1. your evidence is false and 2. I arbitrarily decide that this fabrication was intentional and/or 3. critical to the adjudication of the round

• Also I intervene on speech times and no double wins - I don't believe in grace periods and will stop flowing (feel free to finish your sentence/thought as a presentational matter though)

• You read big new PMR offense - I will likely be generous in granting POOs on arguments that could reasonably (arbitrary) have been in the MG, but like legit PMR offense likely demands my intervention. I will be generous towards golden turns on MO arguments that could have been made in the LOC. Feel free to offer suggestions on how PMR offense should work though.

• I like warrants, and will default to preferring warranted arguments when there’s clashing claims. I dislike it when claims are made without warrants attached and find it hard to evaluate these: please be clear what the warrant is and what it says.

• Default to perms are a test of competition. I do not by default judge kick if judge kicking is what I think it is, which is you going for a cp but I still eval the rest of the round without the cp if you lose the round with the cp. I think this is kinda interesting though? Extremely soft default that is overridden by you asking me to. This means I by default weigh both CP worlds against each other if you go for 2 CPs and win one and lose the other.

• If nobody does weighing for me, I default to strength of link to any terminalized impact (death/dehum/suffering/QoL/strucvio) (I'll probably count "war" and "poverty" as a layer below these if I have to, but I will not count "the economy" or "innovation"), then to magnitude. Weighing is good. Metaweighing is also good.

• I don't really like voting on blips i.e. I'd rather vote on the standards debate than the presumption trigger on netspec but if you make me I guess I can. I probably have a low threshold on blip responses. If you are making a silly argument that is not blippy I'm extremely down though! I really liked clash on compliment theory, I think there's room for clash on mugging, I think tropicality just isn't true so surely the mg has room for responses. Like basically I personally like voting on substance (I'm also partial to like the aff disproves the frameout type arguments).

• I default to presuming neg and not flipping (this is an extremely soft default).

Case

• Yay case is good.

• I like [reading impacts] and [weighing out of the member speeches]. I like uniqueness controls the direction of the link but I also like linear impacts. I also think your uniqueness does and should inform what your impacts are and their magnitude: if this means reading "uniqueness" in your internal links, that's fine, but yeah. If your uniqueness is about air quality and your impact is extinction, I think you need a little more stuff in your advantage.

• Down for whatever CP, whatever CP theory. Just win the theory shell lol. I wouldn’t read a consult CP in front of me but if you’re chill on theory then sure why not.

• CPs are kinda under-read imo. Like think about all the cool stuff you can do. I think a good rule of thumb is if you ever find yourself making an argument as to how the aff uniqueness is going to go, or wish that you could, consider reading a CP lol. I find it hard to think of neg uniqueness CPs (but also Ks exist lol), but I'll give you speaker points if you read a case CP for the DA uniqueness.

• I think you need to win a netben for the CP over the perm for the CP to be competitive, i.e. a tie is not good enough (meaning you can successfully perm a plan+ CP)? IDK maybe this doesnt matter

• I don't default to CPs stacking, i.e. if you go for multiple CPs I will by default evaluate them individually rather than in the same world.

• I think dispo is de facto uncondo, if dispo is can kick if there's no offense put on it (which is my default def)

• I don't really believe in trichot. Feel free to: read me a plan in value rounds where a plan might exist/read me a value in a policy round/read me a K in fact rounds/read me a plan in did more harm than good rounds/read me two condo plans (uhh u might need to win theory for that one)/read theory in any direction. Yo something that's crazy is if you read 2 condo plans maybe the neg can stand up and be like "both these plans are counterplans to the other, so we'll defend the other plan whichever you collapse to."

Ks

• I’ve heard a decent but not massive amount of stuff, assume I don’t know your lit because I don't know your lit xd.

• I am perfectly fine/happy if you read cap on a lay team, but please go slow/take questions. I view negs as getting an equal right to a K as a CP in most cases.

• I default to the aff gets a perm in KvK but am sympathetic to arguments otherwise.

• I like warranted and specific links (that function as DAs/link takeouts), particularly on the neg. I will be very sympathetic to the perm double bind absent these. I find that many case v K rounds can and should be won on the aff.

• I don’t hate FW/T, I have never voted for FW/T but I have thought I won practice rounds on FW/T and lost practice rounds to FW/T. Like I actually think this shell is strong, but I think collapsing to FW/T into a 4 min prepout is often a bad idea.

• I consider many other judges (some of which don't explicitly dislike K affs) to be FW/T hacks. I do not privilege the FW/T skews eval claim over other things like fairness uniqueness, fairness offense, or competing skews eval claims.

Theory

• I don’t care what you read. I've read and enjoyed MG tropicality and benevolent T-must not affirm. If tropicality is the right collapse, please collapse to it, I will be upset if you don't because I want bad theory responses to lose.

• I'm a fan of specific interps, and multiple interps, and multiple counterinterps.

• MG theory might be busted, IDK what I can do about it, I’ll hold a fairly high threshold to golden turns on MG theory I guess? Probably not really lol.

• I default to competing interps, potential abuse under competing interps and proven abuse under reasonability, education > fairness, no RVI, and drop the arg. I don't actually know what reasonability is, I need a definition - if it is unquestionably won then ig I'll just decide what is reasonable xd (believe me you do not want this to happen).

• I view competing interps as meaning "fiated" world of the interp vs world of the counterinterp, i.e. offense is strictly derived from what your interp permits and doesn't permit. This means you should take extra care to explain how things like infinite regress and proven abuse function if you are going for competing interps.

• I feel like something about the uniqueness in theory debate is underexplored, like for example: it's not obvious how "but your interp doesn't ban X which is equally abusive" type nosolves function, because we don't know what is allowed and not allowed outside of the scope of the interp (analogous to the squo for a plan). As an example of this, it might be the case that if an interp is "the neg may not do X," a counterinterp of "the neg may do X, but they may not do Y or Z" is legit (and then we derive OFFENSE off of not doing Y or Z), but it also might not be the case. Who knows??!?!?!

• I also am a firm believer in reading fairness uniqueness (complaining that the other side has the advantage to begin with) as a way of mitigating/enhancing/turning fairness offense. Things get kinda weird when both teams read fairness i.e. a predictability standard against a neg flex counterstandard, and it's not clear how fairness uniqueness interacts with this (like even if it turns the other standard, it only does so if it also turns your standard????)

• Absent a definition I default to RVIs mean that offense local to the shell is bidirectional global offense. I'm down for an RVI text but I do not require one.

• I hack against FPIC. Read disclosure instead. While I do think disclosure is potentially technically verifiable, I think allowing events that occurred out of round to influence the round is very shaky territory and thus I'm not sure if I would ever vote for disclosure lol (although I've read disclosure before and tbh I believe the interp). Read FW/T instead perhaps.

• I also am quite unlikely to vote for any shell that polices clothing/appearance.

• I think a we can't meet is terminal defense. Like, it's missing a few steps, but like whatever.

Other

• Sure. I like CPs vs K affs/LOC ivis idk lol.

• I don't actually know what phil is. Run at your own risk omegalul.

• I don't think an incorrect POO response voids your right to the correct POO response. I just treat POOs as a flag for the judge and the accusation/response as a way of pointing out things I might have missed. I'm not sure if an incorrect POO justification should void your right to the correct POO justification though - my instinct is that it should, because then your opponent didn't get a chance to respond to the correct POO justification. This might be wrong though, because u still have the time to respond even if you didn't get the correct prompt? I will default to it does void.

• I have no idea how to deal with this, but although I find it hilarious I think it is mildly abusive to bait the MO into making new arguments with POIs and will attempt to rule on POOs accordingly.

• I'm not going to lie, I don't understand how a multiculturalism perm spike doesn't bite the perm double bind, so you might need to explain that one to me.

• I almost never will vote on substantively contested defense except as a probability/magnitude/whatever weighing indict, i.e. if you go for defense you should be cleanly winning it. But go for cleanly won defense. It's cool.

• I think fun is kinda an IL to access lmao go for it actually though? unless? IL to education too?

• I might have a slight (large) bias towards the aff. I would highly recommend flipping aff in front of me. As a competitor, I think the aff is kinda busted. I also find my neg ballots are often very close and my aff ballots are often not very close. Flip aff. Go ahead and point at my judging record for your fairness uniqueness lol.

• I've come around to some skew leans neg arguments like the neg gets to flood oneshot kills contextualized to the aff (which has really good synergy with having the block), which is kinda convincing to me. If you're neg that might be a good strategy lol idk.

• Competing skews eval claims are my pet peeve. Skews eval is too strong yes it's a good argument yes it was strategic for everyone to make skews eval claims but complain about them idk I'll be happy if you complain about skews eval claims but absent that if I end the debate with two skews eval claims that both apply to each other then I will very possibly give up and evaluate everything on the same layer.

This is no longer true, because people are now terminalizing their impacts. Yay. I'm leaving it here though: the vast majority of my ballots can be grouped into: you read impacts so you win, you read impacts that terminalize to death dehum suffering or qol so you win, you read impacts with specific numbers attatched to them so you win, you said your impacts matter more without a warrant so you win, you read metaweighing as to why your impacts are more important so you win, you win the uniqueness and it controls the direction of this link so you win.

I use uniqueness controls the direction of the link a lot, it means that if something is already happening the status quo, it doesn't matter if the aff makes it more happening (i.e. the aff has been link turned), the only possible direction the link could go is against the thing happening. This doesn't apply to arguments that carry linear links, i.e. it's pretty hard for starvation to be terminally occurring, or everyone to be dying a war death, for instance. It also doesn't apply as cleanly to cases where things could feasibly be worse, like poverty or voting rights or racism, though the uniqueness does still have an implication on the comparative magnitude of a solvent aff vs a link turned aff. UQ controls the L applies most clearly to IR scenarios like China invading Taiwan: if China is invading Taiwan in the uniqueness, it doesn't matter if the aff makes China more likely to invade Taiwan, and if this is the only impact this constitutes a try or die for the aff. Or if climate change is causing extinction in the status quo, although we could make extinction earlier, that doesn't really carry the same impact, so it often will be a try or die for the aff because the uniqueness controls the direction of the link. I'm extremely partial to try or die framing taking out terminal defense on a risk of a link because of epistemic modesty. I also kinda think epistemic modesty gives you try or die against frameouts absent opposing offense.

Things I am annoyed about

• I believe the PMR has the right to read new offense in the PMR predicated on block rhetoric, though I might be a little? truthy in my evaluation of it. Saying racial slurs is bad and I will not be ruling in a POO whether rhetoric was "reasonably egregious" or not.

• I also generally believe that the PMR is a speech that exists and is worth listening to and will consider arguments that the PMR made when reaching my decision.

• I believe the role of the ballot matters when evaluating offense. If you are going for offense that is framed out by a conceded role of the ballot, that might be a bad idea.

• When i choose to line by line the lor or pmr, the totality of my response will not be "this is pedantic and vacuous," especially if the other team is going for text of the interp > spirit of the interp on another sheet

• I believe that topicality and spec are not the same argument, and any speech using two words at some points in the speech does not equate to those two words being interchangeable.

• I believe that genocide is bad. It seems to outweigh things. Conceding that you cause genocide is bad.

• I will not intentionally not vote for something that you went for because you didn't spend enough time going for it, unless that made your collapse technically bad. i.e. if you can cleanly go for an rvi in the first 30 seconds of the pmr, feel free to move on when you're done.