I have judged LD for a year. I will look for good, strong arguments with good warrants and impacts. By speaking a little slower, clearly, and precisely, it will help with my decision.

I am a citizen judge and a parent of a competitor. This is my 4th year as a judge for LD and PFD. I have judged local tournaments in South Carolina and a few National Circuit Tournaments.

The quality of your arguments is more important than the quantity of your arguments. I will reflect after the debate on who won the debate. Memorable examples relevant to your argument and insightful logic to explain the reasons behind your position can be decisive at this moment of reflection.

Explanation of your evidence and its relevance to your case is more important than the relative credibility of your sources versus the sources of your opponent’s evidence. I will ask myself if I “buy” your argument based on your explanation of the evidence and its relevance.

Enunciation is important so that I can understand your points. Brisk speaking is fine, but don’t sacrifice my ability to understand you, especially in a virtual environment.

Debate the actual resolution. Tell me why it matters and what the stakes are.

Overall, don’t make me work too hard. If you and your opponent were attorneys, which one of you would I hire to defend me in court?

I am an ex-traditional policy debate coach (Stock issues judge) that has been coaching LD since 1990. I usually administrate tournaments rather than judge except when I have been at Catholic Nat's and NSDA Nat's.

Speed: Adapt to the judge who prefers a few well-developed arguments to spreading. I will flow as fast as I can, but it is up to you to communicate to me the compelling/persuasive reasons why you should earn my ballot. Speak clearly and articulate your words and you'll do fine.

Flex Prep. No. Speak within the time constraints and use prep time to see Evidence.

Evidence Challenge: If you doubt the veracity of evidence, then challenge it at the next available opportunity. Remember evidence challenges are all or none. If the evidence has been proven to be altered or conjured, then your opponent loses. If the evidence is verifiable and has NOT been materially altered, then you lose for the specious challenge.

Arguments: A few well-reasoned claims, warrants, and impacts are very persuasive as opposed to a laundry list of underdeveloped assertions/arguments.

Theory Arguments: Not a big fan of sitting in judgment of the topic with critiques. But I do weigh the issue of topicality as germane if made during the constructives.

Philosophy: It's been labeled Value debate for a reason. I encourage the discussion of scholarly philosophies.

Framework: There is a Value that each side is pursuing as their goal. There is a value criterion that is used to measure the accrual of the VP. The last steps include why the Value is superior and why the VC is the best way to measure that value.

Decision-Rule. While repetition often aids learning, I prefer that you tell me what the established standard for judging the round has been and why your arguments have met the threshold. Write the ballot for me.

PFD: I have coached and judged PFD since the event started.

I prefer a framework and a few well-developed arguments to the spread. Point key words as you read your case. Be polite in C-X and ask closed-ended questions. Tell me why your arguments are better by weighing impacts.

Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Email: ryan.parimi@gmail.com

About me:

• Recent college grad--majored in English with minors in German, Chinese, and Business. Went to a very conservative school. Taking a gap year before law school.
• College and high school debate coach/teacher (LD, PF, Parli)
• High school and middle school mock trial coach
• College moot court coach
• Founded my university's debate program
• Founded a speech and debate camp in Jakarta, Indonesia
• Summer debate instructor at Yale, Drew, and U. of Washington

General Debate Philosophy:

• Some describe me as a "hipster"; though I enjoy modern philosophy and theoretical arguments, my philosophy of debate centers on clear arguments and conversational, persuasive speech. After all, you’re trying to win me—not just win arguments in a vacuum. I want to be convinced.
• I like aspects of both traditional and circuit debate. I wish the traditional community wouldn't let its fear of everything turning into policy keep it from adopting some helpful circuit norms, and I wish the circuit community would stop trying to convince itself that a total departure from traditional debate turns the activity into anything but an esoteric game with no real-life application.
• Examples of cases that would be great for my taste: a Cap K that is linked reasonably to the resolution, argued in a traditional style; a traditional case that demonstrates a deep understanding of the philosophy behind its framework; a tech case that restores my faith in humanity by making semi-reasonable arguments and doesn't force me to flow 10 subpoints of copy-paste garbage from the debate wiki.
• Tech over truth (within reason). You should probably run your tech case for me if you're trying to decide between tech and lay.
• I ♥ when impacts, late-round weighing, and voters actually connect to the framework.
• LARP starts and ends with an L :)

Speed:

• Prioritize clarity over speed. Spreading is lame, but I can understand it and won't vote you down solely because you chose to spread. If you spread, you better be good at it: your articulation better not go down the drain, you better stay organized, etc. Email me your case or give me a printed copy before the round if you plan on spreading.

Framework:

• I’m fine with traditional and more modern frameworks. Just make whatever you’re using clear. Be aware that I have a pretty good understanding of the philosophy behind most frameworks...don't try to BS me on Kant or Rawls or something. I will know. That being said, I believe it is on the debaters to call each other out on stuff like that. I'm going to flow it unless it's crazy.

• Please don't throw the framework debate away.

Kritiks and Theory:

• I haven't judged many Ks because I come from a pretty traditional circuit, but a well-developed K could certainly convince me. Similar to the philosophy behind traditional frameworks, I'm pretty familiar with the critical theories behind most Ks.

• Theory arguments are fine when there is actual abuse--just explain clearly. Don't throw in an RVI just because someone happened to mention something was abusive. Save those for something truly egregious.
• I will not vote for disclo. Don't even try it. It sucks, everyone knows it sucks, and I'm not even sure why we still let people get away with trying to win on disclo in 2023. Similarly, reading tricks is basically your way of telling me you're scared you can't win the round legitimately. Why would I ever reward that?
• Just putting this here again to remind you: LARP starts and ends with an L :)

Other random stuff:

• I like reading Alexander Pope, collecting shoes, listening to Chinese rap, and exploring Marxist criticism.

• I will follow the NSDA rules for LD whenever questions come up that the rules address. I follow tradition/best practices for anything else. If you have questions about specific preferences, just ask before the round.