I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Background: 4 years of Public Forum Debate Experience, Lots of Speech Experience, current member of the Cal Parli team.

General Paradigms:

• Make sure your warranting is sound. Creating link chains and reaching impacts only works for me if you have good substance to your arguments.
• For later speeches, remind yourself to balance offense/defense and prioritize arguments that stand better on the flow. Do not feel the need to pace through going over every single thing that has been said in the round to not gain any offense or frontlines on your case.
• Be respectful. Have fun.

I enjoy logical argumentation and reasoning. There is no need to impress me with complicated jargon, as they do not add to your argument. I also do not enjoy speed debating and spreading, where some debators try to say things as fast as possible, as that is not reflected in our real world of reasoning.

I am a parent judge.

Hey, everyone! This is Jude Nieves from the Debate Society of Berkeley. I wish you all luck in the rounds that you compete in! I will do my best to judge the rounds as faithfully and fairly as I possibly can. Never hesitate to ask any questions! Below, you will find some relevant information about me as a judge, and how to win my rounds.

Related Experience/Background:

• 2 years of Varsity Mock Trial at Clovis West High School
• Equity Director and active member of the Debate Society of Berkeley
• Lead Coach (public speaking and debate coach) with The Practice Space
• 2 years of Youth Court experience
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Liaison with The Daily Californian
• Genuine passion for debate, justice and equity

Being an aspiring future lawyer, I am going to treat these rounds as professionally as possible.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: An unfortunate repercussion of being a judge is that I often have to be the messenger of bad news. With that in mind, the reality of being a judge is that regardless of whether you win or lose, you may not agree with everything I decide. All I ask is that even if you don't agree, know that I will always do my best to judge these rounds fairly, considering all rules and points, with absolutely no bias or indecision. I care about fairness in these rounds, and I hold this to a high standard. Please keep that in mind as I announce any verdicts I make, and take the initiative to respect judge decisions.

As an important note: I take pride in giving detailed feedback for EVERYONE! When giving RFDs, I'll describe the reasoning for my verdict along with giving individual feedback on every single speaker: the things you did amazingly, any constructive criticisms, and anything that I think could help you! I hope you guys will value my feedback.

In order to win in my rounds, you must:

• Show up to the debate round on time (you'd better :P)
• Dress to impress (if you can)! I'm talking suits, dress shoes, dresses, heels -- not only will it make you more confident as you present your speeches, but it proves to me that you are serious about this debating opportunity!
• Present sound evidence, with possible rebuttals acknowledged preemptively in your speech ("prebuttals")
• Be professional and highly organized while also maintaining an optimistic, likeable tone
• Explain, in detail and with confidence, each contention that you have and why it is better than those of your opponents
• Make your arguments organized and easy to follow, so that I can process your words and flow them properly (the more understandable your speech is, the better my flow is, and the better you will score!)
• Please, please, PLEASE have your camera on (if it's a Zoom tournament)!!! It makes it a million times easier to flow. Plus, I want to see whose voice I'm hearing :D

As a little bit of a hint: the more professional and organized you are, the more likely you will get higher speaker points in my rounds.

I wish you all luck! I will maintain my kindness and optimism for you all. It's better to have a judge that gives you an emotional refresher rather than one who's so domineering that it only compounds your stress. Also, losing the debate does not necessarily indicate that you failed or performed poorly; sometimes, it's simply where the logic leans. So KEEP YOUR HEAD HELD UP HIGH NO MATTER WHAT! I'll try my best to judge fairly as well, though keep in mind I am new to this, since none of my high schools had debate clubs o.o

And remember: you've got this! Just by being here, you're already winning! <3

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

2 years British Parliamentary debate at UC Berkeley

2 years 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 that the opposition (or your own team) expects you or others to know before the round, but I do consider weighing and proving your arguments to be true as integral to 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 stronger than your opponents (the weighing)

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.

If there are fundamental disagreements about Definitions or Weighing Mechanisms, I will generally default to Government unless Opposition can prove the definition abusive.

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. 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 :)

Hi! I'm a junior senior at Campolindo, this is my 3rd 4th year doing parli.

TLDR:

I like weighing, warrants, good strategic choices, explaining your logic, & POOs. I don't like people who are mean to their opponents (talking too fast for them to hear, argumentative POIs, refusing POIs when you're running techy arguments, etc.)

Misc.

- tech > truth, tabula rasa, & all that.

- speed: I'm pretty sure I can handle speed in the novice circuit. Having said that, if your opponents call "slow" or "clear," you should slow down.

- POI's should be actual clarifying questions, not a chance for you to contest/refute your opponents.

- when in doubt, call POOs. I will protect against wildly new things, but if I'm not sure I will err towards it being not new unless you call the POO.

- I will time you and you should also time yourself.

- tag teaming is fine.

- don't be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

Case

- default to net benefits. But I like creative and strategic framing.

- presumption flows neg unless there's a cp, with some exceptions. (ask if questions)

- perms are tests of competition and are not a path to the ballot, i.e. the perm takes away the cp, but you still have to win something else in order to win the round.

- I'm cool with "cheaty" cp's like condo consult, PICs, delay, etc. In fact if your cp was really clever/strategic, I'll probably reward you w/ speaker points. Be prepared to answer theory though.

Theory

- I'm down for friv theory and whatever you want to run.

- if you use techy language like "theory is apriori," you should be prepared to take your opponents' POIs.

- read counterinterps (CI)!

- I default to CI > reasonability, and I'll only vote on reasonability if you give me a clear brightline as to what is reasonable and what is not. However since this is the novice circuit I'll be more forgiving with things like forgetting to read a CI, and I won't buy "they didn't read a CI so automatically vote us" arguments.

K's

if you're running a k in the novice circuit, you better know what you're talking about, answer at least 6 POI's, and talk at max speed slightly faster than conversational. Don't read dng in front of me, I won't understand it.

Speaker points

I'll be evaluating you on how creative, logical, and well-warranted your arguments were, as well as how strategic were the choices you made. Most people will have 26.5-30 points