Add me to the chain nedabahrani16@gmail.com

Please subject the email "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

About me:

She/her/hers… also good with they/them

Hey I’m Neda Bahrani and I am a current Junior at UC Berkeley. I used to debate Lincoln Douglas/Policy Debate with Dougherty Valley for 5 years. During my time on the team I was Policy Captain for DV and mentor our middle school team. I have competed in both LD and policy style debate through out high school as well as attended camps like CNDI and TDI.

I agree with almost all of Julian Kaffour, Magi Ortiz , Savit Bhat’s Paradigm/Judging philosophy

Tl/dr:

Number your arguments PLEASE

Don’t be offensive. Debate is a game, and supposed to be fun, so don’t take yourself too seriously.

Tech > truth. BUT true arguments are better arguments.

Tricks/Spikes - just no. I won’t flow these.

Friv theory - also a no for me

No RVIs

3 + condo = bad (for LD)

5 + condo = bad (for policy)

You can also refer to my teammate, Savit Bhat’s paradigm if you would like more info than this ^.

Top Level Preferences:

I’m good with anything as long as you do link level analysis and impact out everything. Winning the thesis of your K, your aff, your affirmative, or even your violation is not enough for me to vote for you.

1 - Policy/T

1 - K’s/ K affs

2 - Phil (actual phil, ie nc’s)

3 - Theory

4 - Strike for tricks

K’s

1 - Topic Ks

1 - Security

2 - Set Col

3 - Identity Ks

4 - Anthro/Humanism

5 - Cap

6 - Pomo (Pomo’s are 6 for a reason, don’t pref me just bc “she likes Ks”)

I do enjoy a good K debate. On neg the K winning a turns case, solves case, or some impact ow arg is something I usually like to vote for. I dislike when the alt is intangible and cannot be the intricacies cannot be articulated in cross. You should be able to answer the question “What does the alt look like in the real world?”

Straight Up

This was the style of debate I primarily debated throughout high school. I usually went for “edgy” pics like the asteroids pic, womxn pic, etc. So yeh love those. Honestly at the end of the day it comes down to impact calc and whether you did it and answered the line by line. I like GOOD arguments. My team, throughout highschool, has always produced a really high quality of cards and affirmatives, and that is something I have come to appreciate as I start judging. I hate opening the doc and scrolling through and just being like, “oof this is just a bad aff.” Because those bad arguments are just easily beatable.

If Lay:

If your opponent requests a lay round and it's a ggsa tournament or a "usually" lay tournament you should default lay. However, if your opponent requests a lay round and you are entered in Var TOC at an invitational, I am completely okay with you saying "I won't go fast." That is sufficient for me.

If it is a lay round, I look to who does the most impact weighing.

At the end of the day, be nice and have fun. Debate means more than just your wins and loses.

Hi,

I am a very new parent judge. I can’t hear really well so try to speak up and sit very close to me. I am not familiar with debate jargon so don’t use too complicated terms. I value a few well explained arguments than lots of small arguments. Please sign post well and don’t speak too loud. I don’t like theories and critiques. Please impact your contentions and explain import points

hariharan balasubramanian

I am a writer, activist, and proud mom of a high school debater in Berkeley, California. I used to be a policy debater back in the 1990s at Londonderry High School in Londonderry, New Hampshire. Thanks to my experiences as a high school debater, I've enjoyed fruitful careers in journalism and now political strategy and community organizing.

My 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. I'm 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. I will not disclose in earlier rounds so as not to demoralize anyone. I want y'all to finish strong.

• High school debaters ROCK--Good luck!

Hi. I am Anna Cederstav, a parent who has been judging for three years. I am a scientist by training but mentor 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.

When I'm judging, I look for Clarity, Organization and Confidence and Persuasiveness. I Assess how well they articulate their points, structure their arguments and engage with their audience.

Hi everyone! I’m Keira (she/her) and I debated on the high school circuit from 2019-2023. I love debate and all kinds of arguments (as long as they aren’t problematic), so feel free to run pretty much anything in front of me. If you ever have any questions feel free to reach out, I would love to discuss anything with you!

TL;DR - Make it as easy for me to vote for you as possible. Weighing is generally how you do that. I will evaluate basically anything that is read as long as it's not a blip and isn’t problematic. Generics are okay, I like creative arguments (but good well-warranted args outweigh regardless of whether they’re generic or not). Turns are wonderful so read lots!

Background on me - I’m a tech > truth judge but take that with a solid grain of salt because I probably have a higher bar for what counts as an ‘argument’ vs blips than other judges (I will vote on any argument as long as it's warranted). Sierra Maciorowski was the biggest influence on my personal debate paradigm. I was very much a NorCal debater who loved both tech and lay debate (so really read whatever you’re comfortable with in front of me) and I did dabble in east coast debate (and now APDA!) for a minute.

Round evaluation - the way I'll evaluate rounds is probably: layering --> weighing --> strength of link. If your rebuttal looks like this I will be very happy :)

Case - I love good case debates. Tech case debates were truly my cup of tea as a debater. Read strong uniqueness that clearly lines up with your links please! But if you’re going to have strong warranted claims anywhere please have them in the links because otherwise I cannot tell if your plan does anything. As for impact weighing: my default is magnitude > probability > timeframe but feel free to change my mind in round.

There are three parts to an argument - a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Please don’t read blips because I can’t vote on something that has no explanation or reason why it matters.

I'm not really a case framework person. I definitely won't penalize you for reading it but I also am not going to vote you up for it. The case framework debate usually doesn't end up being that important for me. I also don't like definitions debates (unless they're really abusive).

I will protect but call POOs because my memory isn’t great and my flows can get a bit messy. Jargon is all good, I will follow. PLEASE signpost so that I can stay organized and know what you're talking about.

Tech - Speed is all good with me but ONLY if your opponents are okay with it too. Do not use speed or tech to exclude others please. If you’re reading something really techy or critical I would really appreciate it if you would take lots of POIs.

Theory - I like theory. My defaults are competing interps > reasonability, drop the debater > drop the argument, and no RVIs but those are all easily changed by whatever happens in round (I LOVE reasonability with a good brightline). I’m down to vote on friv but I also have a much lower threshold for responses to friv.

Ks - Fun! I read many of these. I was particularly fond of K affs (doesn’t mean I won’t drop you to TUSFG but I'm also not a TUSFG hack). I can understand the gist of most arguments and I read a variety of lit bases but still assume I'm unfamiliar with most lit and explain it all. Take questions please because if your opponents can't understand your arguments they can't engage.

Some thoughts - I think K affs get perms but will 100% accept reasons why they don't. I don't like language PIKs (I just don't think I've ever seen one deployed well but feel free to disprove this). Links of omission aren't real links. I very much respect defending topical affs against K negs (its hard tho so good luck). Tricks are mean. I'll also vote on tricks. But not if they're blipped out.

Phil - I have never run phil or hit phil. If you want to try running it, please explain it well or I'm probably just going to end up disregarding it. Also make sure your opponent can engage with these arguments as well. And please don't read violent phil authors.

Speaks - I will usually give between 27-29.5 speaks, probably higher speaks for the winning team because I think speaker points should be a reflection of how well you convinced me your arguments are true or important.If you are offensive in any way or I find your arguments problematic, your speaks will drop. Just be kind please and have fun, that's what debate is all about :)

Don't be violent. Don't read problematic arguments. I will have no problem dropping you and tanking your speaks if you do. Debate is a space for us all to develop and grow together. If at any time you feel that you or anyone else is being excluded, please speak up and I will do my best to change that.

You’re all going to do amazing and I’m so excited to watch your round! If you have any questions feel free to ask at the beginning of the round or reach out by email.

Hello, my name is Sarah Crow. I'm a parent of two debaters, and have judged debate tournaments since 2019. I have a policy background, and my career is focused on California's social safety net.

In terms of content in the debate, I have a few expectations.

All arguments should be about the actual resolution. That means no personal attacks, and no Kritiks. This will lead to a more educational and interesting debate.

Good signposting is appreciated, and will be reflected in speaker points. It makes the round easier to follow, and makes arguments generally more persuasive.

I value quality of arguments over quantity; don't introduce arguments just because you feel as though you don't have enough. Focus on the quality of your arguments.

I appreciate a nice civil round, and I expect kindness from all involved.

Good luck!

I look for the most talented team in terms of their arguments and rebuttals. All teams need to be respectful and please.. talk slowly.

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument it may impact your speaks. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

I appreciate signposting. Just speak clearly and do your best.

As a practicing lawyer for many years, I appreciate arguments that are logical and supported by credible evidence. I realize there are many sides to a story and therefore will focus on whose arguments are logical and the most persuasive. Develop your case and clearly articulate your points in a concise manner.

I appreciate traditional debating and probably value arguments over style. I find arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive. I prefer debaters who speak at a conversational pace (ok to talk fast) compared to spreading; too fast of a rate of delivery has made it difficult for me to understand all the arguments in the past. This is the same when too much jargon is used.

I try to keep a rigorous flow - taking notes and mapping arguments so I can recall and access the points made by each side.

I will try to be tabula rasa; however, if something seems to be blatantly false, I may make connections myself or research something I do not know. If your opponent raises such arguments, I expect you to challenge it. I may disagree with something you say – but I will keep an open mind on solid arguments.

UPDATE for Berkeley: Alternate parent (Suneeta Krish) will be judging instead of Damien Gerard. This will be my 1st time as a Judge, but I look for the same point as below.

Damien Gerard: I am a third time parent judge. I look for clarity, logic, well explained arguments. I do not give price for words per minute so articulate well and take your time.

Hi, I'm a parent judge with experience judging east-coast parliamentary debate. I am primarily a flow judge, and I can handle speed (although I prefer if you do not spread). When presenting arguments, I value quality and well-developed link chains over quantity. Clear signposting really helps me, so please be explicit about which contention or refutation you are addressing.

I try to base my decision on the strength of your reasoning and impacts, rather than my personal beliefs. However, if you have any questions about my decision, feel free to ask, just be polite about it.

Please do not run theory or Ks with me. My experience is primarily with east-coast parli, so I'm not familiar with these types of arguments. If you believe it's absolutely necessary to use them, explain them clearly and logically.

I am an experienced speech and Congress coach, and a former competitor.

In Congress, I value respect and courtesy, delivery, an analysis of real-world impacts, evidence and clash - so unless you are the first speech, you need to show me that you are listening and responding to the other speeches in the round. I don't want to hear the same arguments restated and rehashed at the end of the round - give me some new ideas, or some summative analysis. Even if you give a fantastically delivered and well cited speech, if you aren't trying to ask good questions at every opportunity throughout the round, I'm not going to rank you highly. It is, after all, a debate event.

In Lincoln Douglas and in other styles of debate, please don't treat debate like a game. I am very traditional, and treating it like a game with progressive argumentation, performance Ks, K Affs, and RVIs harms those in small schools who don’t have the advantage of many team members to teach them the game, and it creates more inequities in debate. I listen carefully, write down excessive amounts of information and I vote off my flow so if you want my ballot, give a strong final speech that addresses, crystallizes and weighs the key arguments in the round. Show that you were listening to and have evidence to counter arguments presented by your opponent(s). These speeches demonstrate your ability to think and interact with your opponents’ case, much more so than your ability to read a prepared case, that you may or may not have written yourself. Don’t spread. If I can’t understand what you are saying, I can’t flow your case. And no one spreads in real life. Off time road maps are a waste of time. Just as a good extemp speaker should not have to read me the prompt before they start the speech, I should be able to follow your road map within your speech.

In all debate events, and in life, the most important thing is to be kind.

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

CURRENT:
Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

FORMER:
Coach: St. Luke's, Spence, Sidwell Friends
Competitor: LD, APDA

In the last 5 years, I've judged 249 rounds. I've voted AFF 115 (46%) vs NEG 134 (54%). I've been on 111 panels and squirreled 11 times (9%).

____

SUMMARY
Experienced, ‘truthful tech’ flow judge from a traditional debate background. I’m receptive to many arguments, styles, etc., but I prefer strategic case debate or substantive critical debate. Any clash-heavy strategy focused on well-warranted, comparative, topical argumentation should work well for you. I'm not a great judge for contemporary progressive debate (e.g. AFF Ks, performance, tricks, frivolous theory). I'm fine with moderate speed if you slow down on taglines, enunciate, inflect, etc., but I won't flow off the speech doc. Above all, please be kind and respectful to others. And have fun!

____

VOTING
I usually vote wherever the most thorough warranting and responsive weighing was done. If there's no meta-weighing by either team, I tend to prioritize probability/timeframe over scope/magnitude. I tend to value analysis (quality, depth) over assertion (quantity, breadth) on the flow. I'm unlikely to vote for something blippy and under-developed, even if it was conceded. I tend to vote against strategies I consider clash-evasive (e.g. frivolous theory, tricks, conditional CPs, unlinked Ks). Keep in mind that my own rhetorical responsibility is to cogently justify to the losing team why they lost, so being clear is to your advantage.

____

CASE/POLICY
I think debaters chronically misallocate time to stating the obvious about impacts (e.g. "extinction irreversible"), instead of comparing not-obvious details about warrants/evidence. Impact terminalization is fine, but I'm reluctant to vote for extreme impacts with brittle links – I'd prefer to hear probability analysis rather than nuclear war/extinction reductionism. AFF needs to show how their advocacy/plan creates solvency. I like framework-heavy case strategies that challenge net benefits/utilitarian policymaking, especially strategies focused on actor analysis and ethical obligations.

KRITIK
I like K debate, but I also find a lot of it to be obtuse. The link is the most important part of the kritik, because it tells me what you're critiquing/what your opponent did wrong. Links of omission are not links, and reject the AFF/resolution is not an alternative. I'm not comfortable with Ks that ask me to make judgments about a student's immutable identity.My favorite K debates are topically-relevant examinations of academic assumptions, especially in discourse/rhetoric.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
I'm receptive to theory/topicality when it's needed to check in-round abuse, but unreceptive to it for its own sake. An abundance of technical skill shouldn't excuse someone from playing fairly. I'm willing to intervene against debaters who think that baffling their opponent with frivolous theory entitles them to my ballot, and I'm also happy to intervene in favor of a debater who doesn't know the minutiae of theory shells, but is contesting something which is excluding them from the round.

I'm a parent judge with experience judging at a several tournaments.

I will flow your round. Please avoid spreading as well as excessive and unnecessary jargon.

I'm an engineer by training so I’m receptive to logical arguments that are well-linked.

Please remember to be respectful to everyone in the round. At the end of the day, this is only a debate round.

I am new to judging parliamentary debate rounds. While doing my best to understand the art and how to judge it fairly and respectfully, you’d be wise to apply a bit of judge adaptation as follows:

• Providing an outline of your speech and sign posting throughout is greatly appreciated
  as it allows me to more easily flow the debate.
  
  
• Similarly, you may hear the occasional ‘slow’ or ‘clear’ not to add challenge to your task
  but to help me follow your efforts — i.e., spreading is not recommended.
  
  
• POIs used to force clarification of an issue and add substance to an argument will be appreciated,
  POIs used to heckle, harass, break the flow of opposing speakers, or inject points prior to your next speaking period will be frowned upon.
  
  
• I expect case where case applies; and have a familiarity with Ks and theory and an appreciation
  of their judicious and wise use.

I’m looking forward to learning from you and appreciate the opportunity to see you apply what you’ve learned.

I am a lay judge. I am not comfortable with spreading. I'd prefer that you speak clearly and at a moderate pace. Start speeches slowly.

Be polite when countering arguments and during cx. If you are overly aggressive, I will dock points. Win by your sound arguments, not your coercive attitude.

Provide a road-map before each speech.

Please don't run Ks, theory, topicality.

I like to hear a lot of statistics in evidence. Present sound arguments and explain thoroughly.

Clearly explain why you have won at the end.

I've only judged for a couple of debate tournaments. I don't have debate experience myself and am not familiar with debate techniques. I like structured arguments. Please speak slowly and avoid using jargon so that I can follow along.

I am “old school” when it comes to parliamentary debate. I like to see very well-organized speeches, with numbered arguments, solid logic and a sprinkling of good evidence. A rapid fire delivery does not impress me; in fact, I prefer a slower delivery style where the speaker exhibits passion for their side of the topic. As the debate progresses, I do not want to see the same arguments repeated; instead, I want direct clash with the arguments and reasoning presented by previous speakers. I do not appreciate heated or sarcastic responses or rudeness — if a team needs to do this, they don’t deserve to win. When a speaker’s time is up, I expect that they will quickly finish up — I stop listening to arguments 15 seconds into overtime.

I am a parent judge, so please speak clearly. Explain your arguments clearly and incorporate evidence, and I will vote for the team that is able to articulate its arguments effectively.

My approach to judging is holistic. A single blunder won't break your case so don't panic if you lost on a critical issue. I try to look at everything you did - style, content, humor, teamwork etc.

This is my first time judging so I prefer slow, clear, and logical arguments.

I did congressional debate for four years in high school. I competed on the local, state, and national circuit. I know the ins and outs of this activity.

I consider both the flow and lay perspective when it comes to ranking speeches.

In terms of content:

• If you rehash an argument, I will not consider ranking you in the top 8.
• I am also very skeptical of funding arguments. Give me an actual reason to vote for your side.
• I also will not buy your argument if you don't provide me solid solvency.
• If you're a sponser/1st speech, I expect you to set up the framework for the debate and break down each section of the legislation.
• If you give a speech after the second cycle, I want to hear refutation and see more interaction with the round overall
• If you give a speech towards the end of the debate, I appreciate a crystal speech and not much new content introduced.
• Do not lie about evidence. I will fact check you if I am suspicious of your card.

In terms of presentation:

If you read word for word off your legal pad, I will assume you don't actually know what you're talking about. We are not in a speech round, this is congress.

If you degrade or be disrespectful, I will dock you.

Do not raise your voice at anyone during cross x.

I am a parent judge. I have appx. one year of experience judging oratory, debates and extemporaneous.

In prefer oratory, I prefer to have practical content than hypothetical which has real meaning behind it.

I debaters speaking slow/fast but with clarity. State your point clearly. In rebuttal and cross question - address clearly on the points of question raised by your opponent rather that your general/broader view of opposing side. Persuasiveness doesn’t mean that you have to shout and be forceful.

Thanks for checking my paradigm if you happened to check.

Firstly and importantly disclosed, I am an immigrant (moving to US only after 30) and English is not my first language. Please consider it and set your tactic right for ESL (English as a Second Language) as a judge, if you're a debater.

Please listen carefully what opponent says and please construct your turn more relevant to what other says, rather than only speaking what you 've prepared or repeating what you've already told.

Please refrain from just insisting or repeating lots of evidences as to support your claim, as they won't mostly buy me, cause I can't verify them whether they are true or not while I am listening to your debate. Right ?

I hope you will use more common sense than sci-fi articles, researches, newspapers, which requires lots of pre-knowledge. I won't even remember what you said after the debate. Right ?

To me, the debate is not whose claim is right or wrong, but whose appeal is more compelling to vote for.

You will earn my vote by the way you speak, listen, or gestures, and how you invalidate others claim or support your points well ...etc
(balance of all) and your consideration to ESL as a judge.

I am a parent judge.

Common sense will be my paradigm as below.

• Be nice to opponents.
• Prepare reasonable back data to enforce your opinion.
• Listen carefully about opponent's opinion and response with respect.
• Make stress on own's opinion. Imperative that key points are summarized.

In addition, based on Parliamentary Debate rule,

I will choose better team through these

- subjective, but I consider quality of argumentation, rhetorical skill, and wit.

- I will not use my own biases to taint your decision.

- I evaluate teams on the quality of the arguments actually made, not on their own personal beliefs.

- I will not make my decision ON ARGUMENTS THAT WERE NOT PRESENTED IN THE ROUND.

- I will not use ANY NEW ARGUMENTS BROUGHT UP DURING THE REBUTTALS.

*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.

I am a parent/lay judge. I do flow your arguments by taking extensive notes. My judgment is based on the strength and scope of your uniqueness, links, and impacts. Having sign posts as you make your speech is very helpful to me. I have little knowledge about theory and kritik and would appreciate that you debate the actual case.

I am super lay.

Speak slowly.

Break everything down for me.

The most understandable person wins.

No theory or spreading.

Be polite.

I am good with off time roadmap as long as you don’t make any arguments and keep it short.

Keep jargon to a minimum or explain your terms.

If there are any disagreements, then I will take note of it and consult with the rule book.

15 second grace period for speech and debate.

TL;DR - Parent judge who was a national circuit policy debater in high school and college long ago (see experience at very bottom of paradigm). Judged mostly open/varsity parli Fall 2018 - Spring 2022 with increasing amounts of PF in the last year or two and occasional LD & Policy judging throughout . Sections below for Parli, PF, and Policy.

General Overview: I will evaluate framework/criteria/theory/role of the ballot issues first. Unless argued/won otherwise, I default to judging as a policy maker weighing aff plan/world against status quo or neg counterplan/world using net benefits and treat debate as an educational game. I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals (summary/final focus in PF) even if you don't call a POO (Parli). I'm fine with tag teaming (but only flow what the actual speaker says). Speak from anywhere you prefer as long as everyone can hear you. When speech time expires, you can finish your thought, but I will not flow any new arguments started after time expires (no new args in grace period). Cross-ex/crossfire will not be considered in my decision unless you reference it in a speech (that will bring it into the round). You can go fast but probably not full speed (not 200+ wpm). I will call clear or slow as needed. If you run K's, please clearly link them to the resolution/aff plan/aff arguments and explain (K's post-date my debate experience). Signpost. Clearly justify/link theory arguments (high bar for you to win frivolous theory). Don't care about your attire. I rarely look up from my flow during rounds. No need to shake my hand.

If allowed by the tournament rules, please add me to your email chain (if applicable) using edlingo13 [at] gmail.com

==============================================

PF Debate Notes:

I am familiar with the basic structure of PF and have extensive experience judging and competing in other forms of debate. But I am still learning some of the PF-specific terminology. Even though I have only judged perhaps a dozen PF rounds before, here's a few notes I hope will help you.

- Because I am flowing, I don't need you to do a whole lot to extend dropped arguments. If you are pressed for time, and, for example, an entire contention is dropped by the other team, you can just say "extend contention 2 which is dropped". It can help to reiterate the arguments to help fill in details I may not have gotten right on my flow or to draw my attention to particular impacts, but there is no need to individually extend every element of the contention. You can save the analysis for weighing.

- Please do your best to clearly weigh impacts in final focus. I know time is short. However, if you leave it up to me to weigh the advantages of both sides against each other, you are taking a big risk. Best to explain to me why you believe your impacts (harms/benefits) outweigh those presented by the other team. Though not required, I am fine with some weighing also happening in earlier speeches (summary, even rebuttal). For example, if after constructives you think you clearly outweigh, no need to wait until final focus to point that out.

- I don't flow crossfire, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in crossfire to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

- Where there are evidence conflicts (each side has evidence saying the opposite), please do your best to explain why I should prefer your evidence over that of your opponents (study vs. opinion, better author credentials, recency, etc.).

- In general, do what you can to provide clash. If each side just reiterates and defends their own case, that leaves a lot up to the judge. If you want my decision to go your way, best to provide that clash/analysis so I know why you believe you should win the round.

==============================================

Parli Debate Notes (though much is applicable to all forms of debate):

** Note to Tournament Directors - Please add Flex Time to High School Parli debate (see sections 4.C. & 4.H. of the NDPA rules for a definition of Flex Time). I think it will increase the quality of debates/clash in the round, give judges a bit of time to clean up their flows & make notes for later feedback to debaters, and ensure fairness in how much time is taken for each speaker to start.

Default Framework:

In the absence of a contrary framework argued/won in the round, I will make my decision as a policy maker comparing the aff plan/world against the status quo or neg counterplan/world.

Unless argued/won in the round otherwise, I think debate is an educational game. I believe the educational part is primarily for the debaters and only secondarily (at most) for the judge(s) and/or audience. This is one of the reasons I have trouble with K's that are loosely, if at all, related to the resolution being debated. The game aspect of debate implies a need for fairness/balance/equity between aff & neg sides.

With the above defaults (and realistically biases) in mind, I will try to come into the round tabula rasa ("blank slate"). Certainly I won't intentionally bring my political biases into the round. I will try to minimize using any outside knowledge of the topic, but realistically some of that may creep in unless background information is clearly explained in the round.

Especially if you don't like the above framework, please do provide your own in the round. I'm far more likely to make the decision you expect if I'm using framework/weighing criteria that you know (above) or have argued/won in the round.

Theory:

Fine by me. But as with everything else, please explain/justify the theory arguments you make. Don't like blippy theory you toss out in hopes the other side will drop your one line VI/RVI or, similarly, some pre-canned, high speed theory block that even you don't understand (and I can barely flow, if at all).

Speed:

As long as you can still be clear, I am fine with any speed. I will call "slow" or "clear" as needed during the round. But, it's still best to slow down on tags and issues you believe are critical in deciding the round. Especially in the first tournament or two of the year and the first round in the morning, best to go a little slower for me. If you want me to get a clean flow, keep things to a max of perhaps 200 or 250 wpm rather than 350 or 400. Don't spread in a monotone. I know from experience that it is possible to add (brief) pauses where there is a period, slow down on tags, and vary your speed while still averaging 300+ wpm. If you are going to go very fast, it is your responsibility to practice it until you can do so with clarity and in a way that can be flowed.

Kritiks:

K's post-date my competitive debate experience. I have read up a bit on them and seen them used in a few rounds (parli and policy rounds). If you run one (or more), make sure you have a clear link to the resolution/aff plan/aff args. It's also important that you clearly explain the K to me and to the other team (including why it applies in this round and why it should be a voting issue). Just spreading through a K that even you don't understand in the hopes I will understand it and your opponents will mishandle it is very unlikely to be successful. On the other hand, if you understand it, clearly explain it, and answer POI's from your opponents if they seem confused by it, I will seriously consider it in my decision. If you plan to run a K-aff, please disclose to your opponents at the start of prep (or earlier). If you don't, a theory argument by the neg that you should have done so is very likely to win.

Counterplans:

Counterplans seem like a natural fit for Parli to me. Especially with a topic that gives the aff broad leeway to choose a somewhat narrow plan, CPs are a good way to make the round fair for the neg side.

Dropped Arguments:

I will extend arguments that your opponents dropped for you (I think this is now called protecting the flow), but it's still best for you to extend them yourself so that you can explain to me why/how those dropped arguments should factor into my decision. When you extend, I don't need you to re-explain your arguments or extend every individual point in a block that is entirely dropped (though no harm in doing so). How you believe the dropped arguments should impact the overall round is more important to me.

New Arguments in Rebuttals/POO's:

I will ignore what I believe to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, so you don't have to call a POO. However, I do understand the general POO process. So if you want to make certain that I will be treating something as a new argument in rebuttals (and therefore excluding it from my decision making process), go ahead and call the POO. I'd prefer that you don't call a lot of POO's (more than 3), but certainly won't count it against you if you feel the need to call each one out. Though odds are if you are calling that many, I already get that we've got a rebuttal speaker who doesn't realize I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals.

Tag Teaming:

Fine by me. I will, of course, only include what the actual current speaker says in my flow.

Speaker Location:

Stay sitting, stand up, or go to a podium. It's all fine by me. However, if you are a quiet speaker in a noisy room and/or I or the opposing team call out "clear", "louder", etc. please speak in a direction/location that you can be heard by all. I'm fine with taking some time before a speech or stopping time during a speech if we need to adjust everyone's location so all speakers can be clearly heard. If someone can't hear the current speaker, I'm fine with them calling out "louder". If the speaker can't easily adjust so everyone can hear them, go ahead and stop time and we will take time to rearrange so you can be heard without having to shout.

==============================================

Policy Debate Notes:

- Debated 4 years of policy in high school (in CFL/California Coast district, went to State & Nationals, won State), but that was long, long ago.

- Defaults: I will default to judging based on stock issues as a policy maker. For theory issues, I will default to treating debate as an educational game (game implies fairness/equity). On both counts, I am open to alternative frameworks/roles of the ballot.

- Theory, framework, K's need to be developed/clearly explained to me and your competitors or you will have an uphill battle trying to win them (doesn't mean you won't if the other teams drops it or grossly mishandles it, but I do need a basic understanding of your argument in order to vote on it). Likewise, calling something a voting issue doesn't make it one unless you explain why it should be a voting issue.

- I know very little K literature.

- I won't be able to keep up with a full speed/invitational/tech debate these days. But you can certainly speak at a rate that the "person on the street" would think of as quite fast. I will call clear/slow if I'm having trouble keeping up.

- I don't flow cross-ex, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in cross-ex to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

==========================================

Experience:

My competitive experience is almost exclusively policy debate from the late 70's and early to mid-80's. Four years in high school policy debate (1 yr Bellarmine followed by 3 yrs Los Gatos High). Quarters or better at many national invitational tournaments (e.g. Berkeley & Harvard back when they weren't on the same weekend ;-). 1st Place California (CHSSA) State Championships. Invites to national level round robins (Glenbrook, Harvard, UCLA/USC, Georgetown) -- back then the tournament director invited those teams they believed to be the top 9 in the country (perhaps a few more if some teams couldn't attend). In high school I briefly experimented with LD. During my senior year in college (UC Berkeley), I debated one year of CEDA debate. Went to perhaps a half dozen tournaments. Won a couple of them, made it to quarters/semis at some others. Helped the Cal team reach #2 in the national CEDA rankings.

I did parli for all 4 years in high school, and am currently a graduate student so it's been a while.

• Clarity over speed. Please keep jargon on the low end.
• Theory, if used, should be kept concise.
• Please signpost, it helps greatly in weighing!
• Be respectful, keep etiquette, and have fun. Humor is encouraged as long as it is in good spirit :)

E-mail: luiris2019@gmail.com

Hello!

I have been a parent judge since 2020. I appreciate if the participants can pace themselves in a way that I can follow along, and be respectful of their opponents.

Good Luck!

Amit

Background: I primarily did PF in high school (as well as other speech events + Congress). Currently I'm a speech + debate coach. 3x National qualifier.

In all forms of debate, I prioritize clash and impact weighing. Tell me where to vote on the flow. Tell me how you've won your debate.

Parli: I love a good k. I dislike friv theory as it wastes time and contradicts the purpose of debate (education).

PF: Cards without valid reasoning to demonstrate how they support your argument do not prove your point. Please signpost, warrant, and weigh.

LD: I prefer a traditional approach to LD. Set up a framework that explains how your value weighs more or solves for your opponent's case. Use the framework as you weigh voters. Prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to words/speed. LD shouldn't be treated like circuit policy.

Policy: I do my best to keep up with speed, although I'm less familiar flowing policy than other debate formats. I'll consider kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages.

Speech: I vote based on emotional authenticity, delivery, content (topic, speech cutting), organization, and blocking. I care about unique topics in platform events and believable acting + compelling character arcs in interp.

Decorum: To me, debate should be inclusive and welcoming to students of all identities and experience levels. If you make it hostile for someone, I cannot ethically vote for you, no matter the flow. Laughing at your opponents; excessively whispering during others' speeches; or making implicitly sexist, racist, or ableist arguments will affect your speaks and my ability to buy your argument. I will deduct speaker points if I encounter students from the same program running the same arguments word-for-word. Share ideas in prepared debate events, but write your own cases.

I am a high school English teacher with some past parliamentary debate experience. This is my first year judging.

I appreciate well articulated, professionalism during a debate; please do not rush or disparage anyone. I expect a clearly stated roadmap; concrete evidence, facts, and specific arguments to defend your side; acknowledge and argue the issues of your opponents; and include direct refutation.

email: athena04@stanford.edu

I don't have specific preferences to any AFF or NEG strats, just looking for the most logical analysis on either side. I hate intervening (and it's bad debate) when significant points of clash go unaddressed, so make sure to avoid that.

Always judge everyone fairly.

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly as I need to take clear notes for myself.

Please be respectful of your opponents at all times.

Enjoy yourself!

Hey! I'm Alex and I'm a freshman at Berkeley majoring in econ. I did Parli for all 4 years at Menlo-Atherton HS and now compete with the Debate Society of Berkeley. I was fairly successful - won SVUDL 1 (21') + finals at Cal Parli (21') and Stephen Stewart (22'), but I had my share of 0-5s, 1-4s and 2-3s at the start of my career. I'll disclose and give feedback after the round (so long as the tournament doesn't yell at me for it), but if you want additional comments after that, I can email you more of my thoughts. You can also send me an email (alexparikh-briggs@berkeley.edu) if you want more specific feedback/help with something that happened in round.

Non Parli:

If I end up judging you for an event other than Parli, please just err on the side of caution. Idk the nuances of these events too well, but that isn't to say to treat me like a lay judge. Everything below still applies (mostly).

Misc:

tech>truth. I hate intervention, so I literally won’t intervene against anything unless it’s racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. That being said, please just respond to bad arguments so I don’t have to vote on them.

Speed: I will admit, I’m not the greatest with speed. I can handle faster than conversational for sure but I probably can’t handle double breaths. General rule: I think as long as you aren’t going as fast as you possibly can it should be ok. I’ll slow/clear if needed.

POI/POO: Use POI’s. I will flow them. Make sure they are a question, but as long as you do that, I’m fine with tricky/interesting POI’s.

• POO’s: Just call them if you think it’s new. I’ll do my best to protect, but if I screw up, I don’t want that to cost you.

Time: I’ll time and give 0-30 seconds grace (I’ll ask both teams how much grace they want b4 the round starts and we’ll do what you agree on). The millisecond you go overtime, I’m not flowing.

Tag teaming is chill, maybe not every sentence though.

• On that note, I’ll give speaks based on execution of strategy and your overall contribution to the round. This means I don’t care how pretty your speech is, I just care about what you’re saying. I’ll be pretty generous and probably give an average speech around a 28 and adjust from there. Feel free to swear.

If I have nothing to vote on at the end of the round, I’ll presume neg (this shouldn’t happen). If there is a CP, then I’ll presume aff. If the aff then does a perm “do both,” it goes back to NEG. Ask me about this before the round if this is confusing.

Please collapse in rebuttal. Tell me what you want me to vote on.

• If you’re the LOR, DO NOT REPEAT THE MO. (I did this several times, it’s ok, but try not to).

Case:

I did all the different styles - APDA/East Coast, more “Flay'' west coast, and “tech”/NPDA west coast debate. This means that whatever style of debate u want to have is fine with me. That said, here are a few things:

l’ll go off of net bens if I get no other framing. Feel free to be squirrelly, just be ready for fairness/theory arguments.

Every argument should have some form of claim, warrant, and impact. Obviously, feel free to beef these up and use whatever structure you want (Uniqueness/Link/Impact is what I did mostly)

Evidence is cool, just make sure you can explain to me why that evidence is the way it is. For example, if you read me the argument “1 year of poverty takes off 7 years of your life” but can’t tell me why that’s true, I can’t vote on it/evaluate it.

Do weighing. This means DIRECTLY, not implying, why your impact is more important than the other side. I have no defaults. If one team weighs and the other doesn’t I'll just prioritize that framing. If one team goes for magnitude and the other goes for probability, whichever team does meta weighing is what I prefer. If there is no metaweighing, well… I’ll probably have to intervene sadly. Use different forms of weighing like scope, reversibility, etc. Your opponents won’t know how to handle this. I know this is hard, so just do your best. I struggled with it as well.

I really like CP’s. My partner and I literally read advantage CP’s whenever it was possible. Given this, I’ll evaluate whatever CP you want to read, LIKE ACTUALLY, ANYTHING. Just make sure it’s well constructed. Be prepared for your opponents and I to ask you for a text. If it needs to be a paragraph, so be it. I'm down for whacky arguments that you don't think most judges would buy. If it’s not a policy round, just call it a counter advocacy to avoid the trichonomy debate, I'll treat it the same. Same thing if the resolution starts with “This house.”

• If you're the Aff and you’re gonna perm, please tell me whether it’s a test of competition or you’re "doing both"/taking the advocacy. I don’t default here so you need to explain it to me.

• Condo is fine, but be ready for theory.

• Don't do all this work making a nice CP and then lose on a perm. Make sure u think about this during prep. Competition on net bens is fine, u just have to win that then.

Theory:

Definitely my favorite debate argument. I will listen/vote on any theory argument you read. This includes friv t (my threshold for voting on theory is very low lol). I literally ran the interp, during an online tournament, “All participants in a debate round must have their cameras off.” One of the voters was climate change - apparently having ur video on has a 97% greater impact on the environment.

Absolutely no defaults on theory - tell me it’s apriori, tell me drop debater/argument, tell me no RVI’s, tell me competing interps (reasonability is fine too, just give me a brightline), etc.

• On that note, if you’re against friv t, go for an RVI. I don’t understand why people are so against it in parli. You should be able to win the theory argument (friv t is usually easy to respond to) and in that case you win the round.

Again, any shell you can possibly think of is fine. If you run a shell that I haven’t heard before, I’ll boost ur speaks by a full point. I don't really understand how 30 speaks theory works, but if you make it make sense to me, I'll probably just give both of y'all 30 speaks.

The format of your shell, while I’d prefer interp/violation/standards/voters, doesn’t matter. I’ll vote on paragraph theory as long as all of the elements are sort of there.

I'm lumping this with theory because that's where it seems to appear most: IVI's. I'm willing to vote on these, but I need them to be layered and have pre-fiat education/fairness impact that is pretty large. Thus, my threshold for voting on IVI's is much greater than for theory (usually cuz these are just blipped out in 20 seconds, if they're actually explained then probably on par with theory).

K’s:

I will admit, it was hard for me to engage in K’s in high school because that almost always meant my partner and I would get spread out. That being said, if you can slow it down just a tad, I’m totally willing to vote on it. I’m not really familiar with much of the lit you might be using other than cap stuff. Because of what I said above, accessibility matters a lot to me. If you’re running a k, take lots of questions to make sure the other team can engage with you. Also, if they keep saying slow and you just don’t slow, it will be very hard for me to vote for you.

Valid ways to respond to K’s (for teams that aren’t the most familiar):

Read counter-framework/Attack Framework

Attack the Alt

Read Theory

Attack Links

Attack Impacts

I also am not gonna default that K’s come before case, you need to tell me this.

I am a parent judge. Try not to run theory unless you truly believe that something is wrong in the round, such as a rule being broken. Always be courteous and respectful to your opponent. I evaluate tech over truth, and will evaluate the round on the framework that you as the competitors give me.

Competed in speech and debate for 6 years.

2 years of MSPDP

4 years of Lincoln Douglas (NSDA)

3 years of International Extemporaneous

Those were my main events but I've competed in PF, Extemp Debate, and every type of speech except DI, HI, OPP, and POI but I still know how to judge these events.

I debated in the NSDA circuit so I'm definitely a traditional judge but I will try my best to understand your policy/circuit arguments.

I debated for 4 years in policy at Head-Royce as a 1A/2N and went for the K on both the aff and the neg for my last 3 years. I now debate at UC Berkeley and go only for policy args.

Put me on the email chain:

rileyreichel@gmail.com

hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

please name the chain something reasonable.

Do what you do best. This paradigm is short because I will vote for almost any argument so long as it is won in debate. Below are predispositions but every single one can be overcome by debating well. I know everyone says this but I will try my hardest to stick to the flow and judge as objectively as I can. I have also realized I tend to make faces when I like or do not like something.

I read all the evidence mentioned in the final rebuttals. I put a lot of weight in evidence quality and you should be very loud about telling me if your evidence is good, I'll reward it with high speaks.

FW v K aff: Fairness is an impact but I usually prefer skills/clash. I do think that this activity has some effect on debaters and judges but to what extent is up to debate. I have a pretty good understanding of most critical theory but have gone for more security/cap rather than identity args in the past. I like to think I am 50-50 in these debates and can be convinced of almost anything pretty easily.

K v K: Never heard a convincing arg for why K affs don't get perms. Most reasons are predicated off of winning T. I think these debates tend to devolve into perm vs link which seems hard to win for both sides. I like affs that stick to their theory and go for impact turns rather than just becoming whatever the neg read. While your author probably does agree that capitalism/the LIO/hegemony/whatever is bad, it is unlikely that they fully agree with what the negative has said. Debate those intricacies and prove that your model of debate creates nuanced and in-depth clash. The more you run towards no link/perm, the more I buy FW arguments about clash and skills.

Theory: I have been confused by judges who arbitrarily choose not to vote on theory even when fully conceded. Cheap theory violations are easily answered and I am rarely convinced by one liner theory violations in the 2AC becoming 2-3 minutes of the 1AR. That being said, if the negative drops it, go for it. I won't choose not to vote on it just because it's theory, it was short in the 2AC, or because what the negative did was "reasonable".

Random stuff so that you can't get mad at me when this happens:

won't vote on stuff that happened outside the round

will drop you and give 0s for anything blatantly offensive done in round and am willing to end debates early if I think something unsafe is happening

I think reading extinction arguments and not being able to defend against the impact turn is cowardice

I have become increasingly annoyed with people acting like jerks in round. It's a communicative activity and everyone is spending their time here willingly, try to keep that in mind.

I think you can reinsert rehighlighting if it's just saying the other team miscut the evidence. If you're trying to make a new arg, you should prolly read it.

Some people and paradigms to look at to better understand the way I view debate: Larry Dang, T Weddington, Nathan Fleming, Nick Fleming, Katie Wimsatt, Emilio Menotti, Cat Jacob

extra .1 speaks for references to old/current Head-Royce or Cal debaters

Hi o/

I'm currently an undergrad at UC Berkeley and an assistant Speech and Debate coach. I'm a former debater who mainly competed in Parliamentary debate for Claremont High School. Alongside that, I've competed in and/or judged LD, PF, Worlds, BQ, Congress, and several speech events (mainly Impromptu/Extemp). I always appreciate a competitive and respectful round so I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!

General Debate Notes

Please focus on your links! I believe they are just as/more important than your cards/impacts. Arguments that depend on well-thought out logic are always more interesting to listen to than a random card without much analysis from the debater. I weigh magnitude and probability heavily, meaning I will not vote for your nuclear holocaust argument just because you tell me to based on a 0.0000000001% chance. Please provide a roadmap and signpost in each speech! I want to be able to flow your case/refutations as accurately as possible and it's difficult when you spew random facts at me for 7 minutes. Remember, you could have the most beautiful argument to ever be conceived of in human history, but if I don't know where/how to flow it I can't give you credit. Lastly, be respectful! Especially during POIs and cross. That also means avoid making faces or facepalming while your camera is on, I'll probably tank speaks if a debater is being disrespectful throughout the round.

Kritiks & Theory

I'm open to hearing these arguments as long as you can justify them. There are definitely rounds where these arguments are necessary and will impact my decision. I'm not the most familiar with K's so please explain each component to me! If there's one thing I hate more than spreading, it's frivolous theory/k's that you wrote at camp 5 months ago and decided to shoe into your case. Make sure the K actually makes sense for the specific round, not one that you already decided to run before the topic is even announced. (It's an exclusionary tactic against new debaters and makes me sad ). Don't feel pressured to run these arguments either, you don't need to use jargon or this structure to explain why a definition or argument is abusive!

Speaking

I'm pretty generous when it comes to speaks. If you make me laugh I'm probably going to boost your speaks too. Be respectful to your opponents, being rude is an easy way for me to dock your speaks without feeling very bad. Don't Spread, Don't Spread, Don't Spread.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask them in round! :)

glhf

I am a parent judge with experience judging PF for the past two years. I have very basic knowledge on this topic. Please be respectful.

I am a native speaker of French, I like it when participants strive for clarity over speed, and substance over jargon.

Therefore, I propose a paradigm grounded in the following principles:

• Introduction and Taglines: Let's begin with introductions, establishing yourselves and your perspectives.
• Be yourself, be proud of your opinions, don´t hesitate to ask questions or mention fun facts
• My legal background has instilled in me the value of precision and structure.
• Respectful Discourse: Let's engage in respectful exchanges, acknowledging opposing viewpoints without resorting to personal attacks.Remember,we are all here to learn and grow,not to belittle or demean.
• As a parent judge, I will evaluate your performance withfairness and empathy.
• As a French, I like crepes and baguettes a lot, but I love pancakes maybe as much
• Merci et bonne chance!

Current undergraduate student at Berkeley with 4 years of experience in PF.

Email is aryanvsawant@berkeley.edu. Add me to the email chain.

TLDR: Everything below is a preference, and not a rule. Following these preferences does NOT guarantee a win. Do what you have to do to win the debate. I will literally evaluate ANYTHING (I mean it) so long as it is intelligible.

Tech > Truth

[1] General:

Spreading: I don't enjoy it. If you're going to spread, send a speech-doc.

Signposting: Yes, signpost.

Crystallization: Not super important for me personally, though it can be beneficial if the round is getting muddy.

Final Focus (the last speech, not only PF but other events like Parli). Given that you're not making new (particularly no substantive arguments, requesting to look at cards for example will be evaluated) arguments, I will evaluate FF.

I don't flow cross. I listen, sometimes. For Parli: I don't flow POIs, but I DO flow POOs.

Make unique arguments, I love unique arguments

I enjoy charismatic humor (have fun). Don't be disrespectful to your opponents or your teammate(s). Humor won't (by itself) win you the round, but it's a massive plus. Besides, we're all here to have a good time. If you debate like your college applications don't depend on it, you'll find that you'll have much, much more fun.

I enjoy disclosing, but sometimes it takes me forever to go over the flow and review both sides, forcing competitors to wait for me to make a decision. This adds a ton of pressure on me to finish up early that frankly does neither side justice. So unless a tournament explicitly requests that I disclose or I have already made my decision, I don't disclose. If I am on a panel in outrounds, I almost always disclose. Feel free to ask me post-round if I'm disclosing and I'll lyk.

+ 1.5 Speaks for Team(s) That:

• Collapse on a "try or die" framework
• Argue for a ROTB argument on feminism/women's rights
• Introduce a new side about debate I didn't already know about (whatever that means lol)

Do all three earnestly and I will award 30 speaks.

/

[2] Theory:

Ts: I like Ts, -- and topicality debate-- a lot. That being said: Worry less about the "structure" of a T shell and more about the actual argument you're making. You can spend time going down the voters, issues, etc but at the end of the day I'm there to vote for an argument, so make it tangible and easy to vote for. I generally default RVIs.

Ks: I've run feminism/sexism-related ROTB Ks in high school but haven't worked with more of the standard Ks such as Cap Ks, Set Col, etc. I wrote my college application essays on an experience regarding running sexism ROTB K's, so I'd say I have a pretty decent understanding of how to run a K. While I can't promise that I'll be able to keep up, I'd definitely like to learn more about K debate and so I'm generally open to them.

DAs: I like them when they're run by themself in the 1NC. Makes the round cleaner and easier to flow. In other words, I find judging a DA enjoyable when the DA is the entirety of Neg's case.

/

[3] Hot Takes:

[A] Harmful content should be defined VERY NARROWLY. I believe that it's very easy to define uncomfortable arguments as harmful, and that they need to be properly defined in order to protect people, while concurrently allowing free expression within an academic setting. I do not require trigger warnings [unless tournament rules specify otherwise]. I will drop a debater for harmful content if:

1. It goes against the tournament rules. That's not in my hands, so make sure to read the tournament handbook.

2. You're being disrespectful or outright rude to your opponent(s), partner, or judge(s).

[B] Low-point wins should not be a rarity. Speaks and a pure flow debate have absolutely nothing to do with another. You can be both a good speaker and a good flow debater, and you can also be a terrible speaker and a good flow debater. I do not and will never understand why some circuits discourage low-point wins.

[C] If you make a frontline or response that goes unresponded to, you should not be obliged to extend it throughout the round, because it is the burden of your opponent to flow it and respond to it. For example, if your opponent doesn't respond to your rebuttal speech frontlines in first summary, you do not have to bring it up in second summary. You should bring it up in final focus (the last speech) so I know that you're going for that argument. Is it always the best strategy? Probably not, since there's a chance I may have not flowed it. That being said, the burden is not on you.

/

[4] Random, but Important to Me: The inflection between theory and small schools

As a debater from a small school that began the speech and debate program at my school, I'm very, very aware of the financial and educational difficulties that prevent small schools from accessing the same amount of resources as bigger schools. Big schools can compete at tournaments 5 times the number of rounds a small school can compete in. Not only do they receive more "practice" in competition, but they have big prep teams that have the ability to share and pay for information. In other words, when big schools compete against small schools, the rounds hold a greater value for small schools because they are one of the few opportunities throughout the year that they have to compete within the national circuit.

With all of that being said, if you are a school that chooses to run theory/K/any tech argument on a small school, I will vote for the theory (assuming it's winning: your opponents legitimately do not respond to or defend against what you're running). I've wrestled with this issue for a long time, but I've (you could honestly convince me otherwise on any given day) come to the conclusion that theory is a part of circuit debate, whether or not I like it. So yes, invitationals matter a lot to small schools because there are only so many they can compete within an year. But I am also of the opinion that basic theory knowledge is necessary for national circuit debate, and that it is essential for a pure trad team to face a theory round in order for the small school to work toward becoming better at circuit debate. How would they go about that given the lack of educational resources? Reddit, Discord, and asking others etc is probably the best option at the moment. But I think that the benefits of facing such a round, especially for a novice team or a small school is necessary for the long term and future rounds, since they will have to ultimately hit a tech round someday.

I am not a fan of "oppressor vs. oppressed" hierarchies within a non-technical sphere (outside of the scope of theory). Please do not try to convince me you are a small school or a big school, it doesn't matter. I've seen millionaires attending Title IV schools and low-income students attending private college prep boarding schools. I've seen it all. This is why I intentionally left out my definition for the two terms-- it opens up a can of worms that is really unnecessary.

If you are running theory on a small school, all I ask is that you do it for a legitimate reason (plagiarism, etc). If you run something wild like a really badly, convoluted theory that has no response by your opponent, I will vote for you. But not only would I feel terrible about myself after that, but I think that would just be a sucky round to judge overall. It would be off-putting rather than productive. The choice is yours.*

If you are a small school or a team that doesn't know how to respond to theory: Just respond to the argument. No matter if you call it a K, T, or a DA, it's always an argument at the end of the day. Debate like you always do, and don't let your opponents intimidate you with a bunch of technical jargon. That is the best advice I can give you for now.

* If a newer/smaller team can successfully argue such theory is abusing the system (ie not conducive of an educational environment), I almost always default to the RVI (the team that argues that the theory is abusing the system).

/

I'm constantly changing this paradigm over the tournaments I judge. If you ever have a question about something, disagree with my paradigm, and or want to offer thoughts on how I could improve how I judge, feel free to lmk!

If you have any questions, my email is aryanvsawant@berkeley.edu

HI, I am a parent judge. I have only judged for a little bit, so speaking clearly is important to me. Please explain your reasoning and I value main strong arguments over a bunch of small weaker ones. Last thing, have fun! Make sure you have a good time debating. Good luck!

Michael Shurance

Debate Paradigm:

Framework:

Debate is a game. I won't drop arguments I disagree with or that are hard to prove unless they are inherently racist, sexist, or discriminatory in some fundamental sense which makes debate inaccessible. AGAIN INACCESSIBLE: An example of these would obviously be like (white supremacy, nazism/racial superiority,) I will drop anyone advocating for those positions. We all deserve respect and fairness.

Theory:

Theory is fine if theres actually abuse from the Aff (topicality, specs, ect) , or the neg, (such as a condo, or a pic). I will vote on a good theory. I generally don't think theory operates A prior unless it's about specific abuse, but if you say it operates a prior, and they don't dispute it, then it operates a prior. If its not then its a normal off case position that arguments for different rules and standards that my vote would help promote. Multiple theories are not good. If theres abuse, run a theory, and if you want to enforce a interpretation, run a theory non a prior, if it seems prepped im more suspicious. Don't time skew on purpose. I don't believe you should generally "drop" theories, but you can.

K's:

If the K links into the AFF's solvency, or their plan text in some fundamental sense, then its acceptable. The alternative needs to exist, and you have to explain why I shouldn't buy a permutation. A k without an alternative is just a harsh judgement of the status quo, which the aff likely agrees with. Unless you present an alternative world that passing the plan text leads to not being possible its just a try or die for the aff.

Aff K's

In order to run a K on the aff you need to prove that the resolution is so messed up; that you are ethically bond to not defend it, and that the fairness/education lost is outweighed by either your solvency, or by avoiding having to defend the resolution. It's a huge uphill battle, and ill likely vote neg on presumption.

Advocacies are not conditional in an ideal world, if you kick out off an advocacy Im much more skeptical on the aff as to why you needed to break procedural fairness in the first place, and may vote you down. Everytime you kick out of an advocacy you work against the K you ran, making it seem trivial or insincere. Its a slap in the face on people who actually have convictions about their kritiks. I generally don't believe you should argue strongly for K's you don't have conviction about, especially on the aff, and because you don't believe the framework means that my vote for the advocacy would have also been insincere which 1. hurts your solvency/ 2. destroys your movement. which turns your K into handwashing, and nothing more then a useless academic exercise.

Speed:

talking fast is fun, speeding is semi fine, but if you get slowed or clear'd please comply. I think access is very important.

Ballot:

Flow is very important on how I judge, whether or not your opponent did a good job attacking your position or argument weighs heavily in my mind. Key arguments are more important then quantity, but if you have alot of arguments ill weigh them as well. I really like case debate, if you can seek out and find clash you'll be rewarded for it.

Speech Paradigm:

Be polite and persuasive/funny/engaging with your speech, as hard as it is, try and be happy/excited to be here, and excited to share your speech/worldview/story.

I will likely judge heavily based on performance.

I am a 2nd year parent judge. 

I look for facts and examples.

Please be respectful and don’t talk over one another.

Please speak clearly, instead of fast.

World Schools note for Cal -First time judging this - still figuring out the point system & norms so to be as fair as possible here's how I find myself voting so far:

• winning team will be the team who had better argumentation / framing. Don't use this as an excuse to do things that would not be in the norms of world schools tho, like excessive speed / more theoretical stuff / anything exclusionary to teams that aren't prepared for it. Also since no low point wins, a killer reply speech can't save 3 bad constructives. If it's close enough though, the team who I think won on paper will win on tabroom. Surprising myself with who the winner is by just adding up the points speech by speech made me too sad.
• High style points = good sign posting, clear extensions, creative arguments, confident responses to POIs. I don't care as much that a speech is perfectly polished so much as that it is creative and effective and doesn't waste time. To honor the vibes of WSD, if you're confident / funny, your score will be higher. If you're rude / make excessive POIs / read word for word off a paper, your score will be lower. That being said, your performative ability will most likely not be what determines the round for me.
• High content points = I like the stuff you put on the paper. A good mix of defensive and offensive responses (not just cross applications of your own case). Having flushed out substantives (rather than blips that come out in later speeches). Creative arguments that aren't all US-centric. Stats aren't as important in world schools as clear logic, so make sure everything has a claim & reasoning & impact of some sort.
• Strategy points = Good extensions, good framing, good time management, and consistency across each speech on your team.
• IMO, POIs are more for you than for me. Get clarification on their case / get the other side to say something you can use against them / catch them in a double bind to use later. I'm probably not going to flow anything new from a POI unless you bring it up in a speech later and tell me why it matters. Making them probably won't impact your score much unless they're really good or really bad.

TLDR as of Feb '24: Will listen to almost anything, preference for case since I'm much better at judging it (imo), and my ability to comprehend speed is not great these days and I for whatever reason am incapable of flowing on a computer so if you go too fast for me to be able to actually pen to paper write it down I may miss stuff. Wouldn't object to being classified more as flay than flow at this point, but a unique / interesting round is better than a boring / recycled round - take that however you want. And full disclosure idek what a trick is unless it's that grains of sand stuff - that I definitely do not like pls I will have flashbacks to the worst rounds I ever debated lol

- debated in high school parliamentary debate for four years (2015-2019) for Campolindo and Mountain View / Los Altos (won a few things, went to TOC x3, but also it's been a long time and the circuit has def changed)

- coached PF for a few years and a lil bit of parli

For Parli

For the record, I will in fact listen to and vote on anything you read so long as it's done well, below are my preferences but of course they are not hard and fast rules; you do you - it's your round not mine.

- I haven’t competed in years and mostly coached slower events such as PF, so spreading super fast is probably not in your best interest, and in a limited prep event like parli with 8 min for a constructive if you're saying the right things you probably don't need to go egregiously fast anyway.

- I prefer the structure of case debate solely because I'm better at judging it - if you feel like going for critical impacts that is fine but I would much rather hear a well warranted critical advantage or disadvantage than an over rehearsed and framework heavy kritik

- If you do decide to read a K I won't hate you but here's my disclaimer: I did not read Ks except like 4 times ever. I studied philosophy in college so I'm relatively familiar w most stock K theory & I read some satirical stuff / Baudrillard. But also I hate misinterpretations / butchering of philosophy to better suit your case so if you read a K it better be good. And regardless of my knowledge if you read a K still assume I do not understand, and be as clear as possible. While I'll do my best to place it in the context of the round reading a K in general means there is a marginally higher chance I will make what more k-oriented judges would consider the wrong decision. So bear that in mind.

- if reading more complex or identity related kritiks be especially sure you actually understand what you are talking about and the implications behind it. I'll probably hold you to a higher standard of explanation on these

- I don't like frivolous theory so if you're reading it at least make it ridiculous and fun lol. Theory is important when an action a team has taken has changed the course of the round. Theory is less important when the shell itself is what changes the round. But I guess at a certain point it becomes satire and then it loops back to maybe being important again?

- Justify your impact framing. Magnitude is probably overrated. What would make the world actually better is if people thought about probable and structural impacts of their actions. I'll definitely vote on magnitude if given reason to though.

For PF

- I don't really flow cross cause I'm not abt that many columns on my flow but I promise I'll listen :) Bring up any important cross developments in a speech as well and I'll definitely flow it then

- Sticky defense (unless you give me a reason otherwise) so long as you mention it in FF, so you can ignore through summary if conceded

- If you plan on going fast to the point where you go beyond the average person's flowing capabilities, you should email me & your opponents your evidence. But also I'm fine with more speed in PF because a 4 minute constructive just seems so short to the Parli side of me

- not a fan of paraphrasing & if you do make sure citations are clear

- if you are reading norm-setting theoretical arguments or critical identity args look to my parli notes

Hi, I am a lay parent judge with experience.

Things I like: clear explanation of your side and burden, clear path to the ballot, defend your assigned side of the topic

Things I dont like: technical arguments and fast speaking

I’m a parent judge who has been judging parli at a handful of tournaments since 2019. I’m comfortable with case debate; counterplans are fine; I’m open to hearing theory. I normally don’t disclose at the end of each round, sorry!

Background: 4 years of high school speech and debate with Flintridge Prep. Competed mostly in Parliamentary and Big Questions but I have done Worlds and Policy

Overall, I'm game with whatever kind of round makes you feel the most comfortable and I'm willing to vote on pretty much any argument. However, please make it accessible to everyone else in the room (opponents and judges) who may not be comfortable with certain jargon or argumentation. I like rounds that have a lot of clash, but that doesn't mean you should expect me to remember every warrant you've read. Therefore, you should use the last speech to tell me a) what argument you won b) why you won it and c) why it should be enough to win the ballot- I should be able to follow this without having seen any of the debate beforehand (I will of course be flowing though). I will do my best not to intervene. Please maintain a sense of decorum and respect your opponents/judges- this matters more to me than who wins the round. Most importantly, make sure you are having fun!

Varsity Policy/LD stuff

I'm ok with speed as long as all judges/competitors are as well (access is important to me). Just send a speech doc (dylan.tanouye@gmail.com) and slow down for tags and analytics. If I can't understand your arguments, I won't be able to vote for you. Don't read theory just for the sake of trying to get your opponent to drop a disclosure shell, save it for genuine violations and I'll be more compelled to vote on it. I'm willing to listen to a K on both the aff and the neg, just explain your advocacy a little more than you normally would since I don't have a ton of experience here.

Good luck and feel free to ask me any questions before round!

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round!

Hello kiddos,

I have been in Debate for quite a few years. I am down to evaluate whatever arguments you want to run. I am not here to tell you what to run or how fast to run it. This is your show. I am cool with speed, ks, policy, procedurals, theory, or anything else you want to do. I wouldn't want you to think the round is about appealing to me, I think it is my job to evaluate the discussion you all have. Best of luck to you all.

I am a parent judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly, and do not run theory shells or kritiks.

hi i’m abi (she/he)! i’m a freshman at berkeley and debated parli at nueva for 4 years.

tldr: i really like tech case debate! i can evaluate k debate (familiar w cap/mlm/whatnot, matfem was my jam!). theory is fine, but friv is not my cup of tea. provide cw’s as appropriate. ask for prefs b4 round/any questions are fine! 15sec of grace, i will be timing on my end :p

debate is an educational activity first and foremost. this means that exclusionary vibes and discrimination have no place here. let’s be accessible, kind, and in community! i will intervene against violence.

this means that if you’re a k team hitting a non-k-experienced team, take a min off time to explain your strat/litbase basics and don’t spread your opponents out of the round. kudos + speaks if you try to take clarification questions from the other team. conversely, if you are a non-k-experienced team hitting a k team, you can run t-usfg or whatever, but i would love to see you engage with your opponent’s k and actual arguments in good faith. there’s a lot to be learned from ks and it breaks my heart to see the influx of anti-k sentiments flooding the circuit.

kritical education is how we break cycles of oppression; to push k’s out of parli means embracing the white, cis-heteronormative, patriarchial practice of debate.

——— details below!!

case! i love case debate! i think it’s fun, especially when both sides have a bunch of well-leveraged warrants and are willing to clash. links and impacts are key! tell me what the plan does and why it’s important. weigh your impacts with either probability/magnitude/timeframe frameworks or based on your collapse-strat and the argument you want me to vote on. remember to signpost and organize and balance offensive arguments with defensive ones! PERMS ARE A TEST OF COMPETITION. please please please read a perm-text. i do protect sorta-kinda-vibes. pmr grandstanding is a time-honored tradition, but if it’s egregious i won’t buy it. please POO!

theory~ please try to run theory on proven abuse, an avalanche of shells can be pretty uninteresting, especially if not run well, and makes for a slightly less fun round. impact your theory out! i default competing interps over reasonability and education over fairness, but explain to me what i should be voting on. if you’re kicking the shell, be clear about layering and EXTEND DEFENSE.

kritiks: spicy! delicious! i am most familiar with cap, nihilsm, and matfem but will gladly listen to cool arguments. i want to hear a well-written monism shell sometime; if you run one well, i’ll give you 30 speaks. please signpost and write REAL links :)) your alt should have solvency pretty please! (reject alts are kinda boring tbh) please don’t read identity ks for an aspect of identity you don’t embody. k affs are a vibe, if you reject the res, tell me why you’re doing so. please be clear about layering here too! if you have any k questions, ask me for my contact info in-round :))

misc... ✨texts are binding✨ please respect slow/clears (from either me or your opponents!) please try to answer 1-2 POIs/speech. tech over truth. i think speaker points are bad so if u quote lyrics from my chemical romance or tell me a cool star wars related fact then i’ll give you a 30. if you're being a dick, i'll bomb your points or drop u lol. i default to 29 speaks.

email: colewogan@gmail.com add me to email chain

Graduated HS in 2021, 4 years of poli experience, 2 years of light parli experience .

Parli Paradigm:

Do comparative analysis. Parli debates are won and lost not based on the individual strengths of y'alls' arguments, they are won and lost based on how well you can convince me that for XY or Z reason your argument outweighs, modifies, or what have you the opponents argument. Points of information are reasonable, just don't abuse them. Same goes for responding to POIs -- I tend to dock speaks if you never answer any POIs; it's bad optics. Points of order can be a creative and fun way to win the round. Don't be afraid to make them.

Parli K debate: I will evaluate these rounds fairly, but the link chain needs to be solid for me to weigh the K, especially considering most Parli K teams have blocks that they apply regardless of the topic. That's not to say that there aren't specific links, you just have to apply your arguments to the topic, don't expect me to do it for you. Will vote either way on FW.

Policy Paradigm:

4 year 2a who mixed between policy (typically soft left) affs and k affs. Will give all args the light of day of course, but it's probably important for me to note that I am far more familiar with K-stuff and theory, so if you are going for traditional policy args like a DA + CP articulate the link chain VERY clearly, with specific links to their aff, not just [generic politics link] [generic extinction impact].

K debate:

Obligatory try to mitigate the overview as much as possible. I get it, your overview is the most gorgeously written diatribe you've ever written, but it probably isn't all that applicable, or, if it is, can be split up throughout the line by line. I'm not opposed to an overview, in fact in a lot of ways I think it's very important to have, but if it's going longer than 1min, you're probably overdoing it.

Don't assume I know the critical theory you're reading from -- I might have been familiar with this stuff in the past, but my memory isn't all that great, so err on the side of overexplaining. Link turns as a K-debater are your best friend, and a good one can go a loooong way.

For K-affs, I would say I am solidly middle of the road on the FW question, so if you're a policy team absolutely go for it, and if at all possible a TVA is pretty helpful IMO. I like good FW debates, the generic our specific aff education versus generic limits setting is quite trite.

Other:

I highly encourage you to go for theory (especially T or ASPEC) , or at the very least extend it past the 1nr - in my experience most teams don't know what they're doing and will just read and re-read their 2ac theory blocks.

Also, extend case in the block lmao.

Hi! I am a parent judge. Although I am flay, I have judged for many years and has experience to some extent. Here are a few preferences that may win you a round:

1. Please be nice to your opponents. If something rude or offensive is brought in, I will automatically vote for the other side.

2. Please do not spread. You can speak at a fast pace as long as it is clear, although I do prefer a slower and steadier pace.

3. When your opponents ask for cards, please give them in less than 2 minutes. After 2 minutes is up, it will count as your own prep time.

4. I do not flow crossfire. If you want me to flow something brought up in cross, please extend them in later speeches.

5. I have some knowledge over this debate topic, but please do make sure you explain your arguments clearly.

6. I prefer Truth > Tech, but if your truth makes no sense, then I will not buy it.

7. Please weigh impacts and bring up voter issues in the final speeches.

8. I will provide a 10 second mercy rule after you have reached the speech limit. Note that I will not flow anything after that.

9. Have fun! I am looking forward to seeing you all! :D

Hi. My name is Ken. I was born in 1970. GenX is best. I consider myself open minded without bias and appreciate data and facts. I am a fiscal republican who ❤️’s Reagan but socially aligns to the left. I do not appreciate unsubstantiated bashing directed at so-called RINO I am an avid fan of Pearl Jam for their music and their support to various organizations throughout the world and local community.

3rd year flay parent judge