Hello wonderful debaters, if you are reading this then I am probably judging you next round, how exciting! I am a HS Parliamentary debater, I prefer Truth>Tech, and most importantly, if you can work in a Taylor Swift quote or reference in a speech, I will give you higher speaker points.

Overall, run whatever you want, but do so in a way that is understandable and accessible to both sides. Assume I know very little about theory, K's, philosophy, or other complex debatery topics, so if you run them you need to do so in a way that a lay judge can understand.

Do's:

• Speak Clearly (I have hearing issues and if you speak too fast or mumble I may not understand you)
• Respond to the actual arguments being made
• Please, please, please signpost
• Give me a solid weighing mechanism in PMC or LOC and then weigh during the PMR and LOR
• Explain concepts or definitions clearly and try to give examples
• Ask/take one or two POI's

Don't

• Be rude or make debate inaccessible
• Rely too heavily on evidence (It can be good to back up points but the arguments should be based on logic)
• Use unnecessary jargon or theory (If you do use these, explain them clearly, or they will only serve to weaken your case and waste time)

Other notes:

• I am very receptive to blatant compliments before or after the round
• I am a fan of unpredictable Counter Plans, but please explain and weigh them well (I once won a round running abolish the Senate)
• If you have any questions feel free to email me: georgiabiddlegottesman@students.berkeley.net

"REFUTE" IS NOT A NOUN AND "WARRANTATION" IS NOT A WORD. -0.5 SPEAKS EVERY TIME YOU USE THEM

I'm Nate Bomze, and I'm a sophomore at Nueva. I've been debating in varsity parli for ~3 years.

ALWAYS take at least one POI if asked; I don't want to hear "I don't have time" or "I'll get to it at the end". Especially in novice, taking questions is vital to actually getting education out of the round, and it's also really important as a way to check back on unfairness later in the round. If you don't take a POI when one is asked during your speech, I will give you a 25 and actively look for a way to vote for your opponents.

Tech>truth, but don't be blippy. I reserve the right to intervene on anything blatantly untrue, but it won't affect my ballot unless it's a key warrant for whatever I end up voting on.

I can flow any speed and any argument, but I would suggest you stay away from theory/T and K's, solely because your opponents in novice are unlikely to be able to respond to them well, and I really don't want to have to decide whether a technically correct but probably abusive argument should win.

Weigh impacts! Don't debate in a bubble; actually explain to me why your arguments are more powerful than your opponents. If you weigh impacts and your opponents don't, you have a ~80% chance to win.

I'll give 30 speaks if I think you should win a speaker award, and 27-29 for everyone else. The speaks I give are totally separate from my ballot; they're solely a measure of your presentation, which I won't use to evaluate who wins the round.

Please don't be racist, sexist, etc. Don't interrupt your opponents. Be nice people in general. Have fun! While it doesn't always feel like it, debate, especially in novice, is a game. Don't take it too seriously.

npdl toc '23 & '24

Senior @ Washington, 4+ yrs of parli experience

tech judge, love and have read all types of arguments.

run whatever you want, this is your round, i'm down to evaluate anything (case, k's, theory, tricks, etc).

perhaps this is a hot take, i love friv theory. read it, it's funny!

speaks-- winner (29.5) & loser (28)

about me:

hi, i'm ethan (any pronouns), a junior parli debater with mvla. i've had 16 different partners so you might've seen me on the circuit with: yuika sun, caleb lin, sandy xu, preston bhat, caroline martin, catherine wong, sophia zhang, keira chatwin, abhinav kasturi, taylor luna, nevin pai, calista woo, grace chang, sumanth mahaligam, sally tei, and abby zhou. my views on debate have been shaped by each of those partners who come from all kinds of debate backgrounds. all of that just means i'm down for whatever type of debate you wanna do.

tl;dr:

tech > truth. this is your debate, run whatever you want. signpost, extend your arguments, and do good weighing. don't worry about me rejecting any arguments. as long as you're warranting and implicating your arguments i can evaluate anything. i don't intervene (except maybe on accident oops). if i think an argument is problematic, i'll vote on the flow but report you to tab + your coach.

general:

• all arguments need a claim, warrant, and implication
• nothing is sticky and shadow extensions make me sad
• extend terminal defense/resolve offense if you're trying to kick out of something
• collapse
• weigh
• comfortable with ~300wpm w/o docs. dont spread out your opponents
• tag teaming is fine (but i only flow speaker unless given reasons otherwise)
• grace time is fake i stop flowing after time.

policy debates:

• trichot is fake. debate the topic however u want, just be ready to win the fw/theory debate
• i tend to look at uq frames the link a lot. think carefully about your uniqueness
• terminalize your impacts pls! just saying "econ goes down" is not enough
• spec-affs and cps are cool if done strategically
• fine with condo but also receptive to condo bad
• fine with pics but also receptive to pics bad
• biased against cheaty cps (e.g. consult) but will vote on them
• perm is not an advocacy, it's a test of competition
• default to no judge kick, but can if told to
• give me texts & read solvency

lay vs. tech

this is just a rant, skip it if you want. there is no real delineation between "lay" and "tech." everything in debate is just an argument. i don't see why debating solely the topic and solely in a "lay" way is uniquely educational, especially when all the evidence in parli is garbage and the topics are recycled from tournament to tournament. so i (as a debater not a judge) don't really like trad rounds. if parli was a space solely for learning about current events and policymaking, i would hate this space since it spreads misinformation more than anything else. i think parli should be a space to learn how to think critically and construct arguments critically. i like friv theory because it's fun to run and gets people thinking critically. i like ks for the same reason. i think if people stopped being so scared of certain arguments and just tried their best to engage, they'd stop hating different style of debate so much. that also means debaters should be accessible with their language and POIs.

theory:

• i went for theory a lot. i can hang. just be accessible
• default to competing interps
• no default for drop the arg vs. debater. without an implication i can't eval the shell
• reasonability is tough to win without a brightline
• unpopular opinion: the rvi is underrated. just make it better than timeskew

kritiks:

• don't make the k inaccessible
• familiar with queer theory, basic cap, and a smidge of lacan
• know some pomo (mostly baudy and a little dng)
• do layering work. "prefiat > postfiat" isn't enough
• disclose non t k-affs (in parli, rotb + alt is nice)
• willing to vote on disclosure
• tfw is strong, just be able to answer the prep-outs
• extinction outweighs is strong, just win fw

funky tech:

• explain the implications to phil if you're reading it
• down for tricks, just read warrants
• down to hear judge performance but tell me how to eval it
• willing to vote on presumption triggers if warranted. don't create contradictions
• my fav fruits are peaches

misc:

• i flow poi answers and these are binding
• call the poo. incorrect poo articulations will not be punished
• 2ar and 2nr get new weighing but earlier weighing beats it
• 2ar gets golden turns on new args + shadow extensions
• i check back against golden turns by ensuring sufficient warranting
• imo the 2ar is broken if you can weigh. i'd suggest flipping aff in front of me
• i give speaks based on strategy. i might buy 30 speaks theory

everything in this paradigm is a soft default and can be changed if the right arguments are made in round.

final note:

this paradigm is long. i know. i make it this detailed because i don't want to underestimate 'novices'. if you don't understand half the stuff in this paradigm, that's fine! ask questions if you have them or just try your best to enjoy the debate and make the debate enjoyable for your opponents. i'll give in-depth feedback and disclose if allowed. good luck!

Senior @ Nueva.

I'm down to hear anything, that being said maybe don't read super tech-y stuff in novice, especially if everyone in the round is not super down (I guess like if plan or something is super abusive you can try to run something). I am tech > truth, happy to answer any specific questions you might have before/after the round. I do like theory thoooo.

Everyone gets 30s, I am happy to give you verbal feedback on speaking/strategy but I think the points don't actually matter in JV.