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)

hi hi!

i'm divya mohanty (she/her), a junior parli debater at washington high school. i love debate a ton, and this is my 4th year doing it, and if i may toot my own horn a little, i think i'm pretty decent at it. if you're seeing this, you're probably either a novice or a middle schooler and probably a little newer to this, so just take a deep breath and debate the best you can. best case scenario you're stunning and amazing and win and all that jazz, and worst case scenario you lose one round of one tournament and get some solid feedback out of it cuz it's really not that deep.

for cfl novice:i can't disclose, but i'll give some simple feedback after the round. other than that i'm always willing to stay afterwards to answer any questions, give more extensive feedback on your speaking specifically, along with give y'all any tips (on flowing, teamwork, etc.) if you want. if you don't debate parli, i'll adapt to your event. add me to the email chain: divya.mohanty@gmail.com .

tl;dr: signpost pls, don't worry about speaks, impact and weigh good, extend your arguments or i won't vote on it, have fun, ask me anything pre or post-round!

onto what I actually want to see in a debate round :)

general tips: signpost (tell me where you are on the flow: ex. DA 3, Public Health DA, etc) so that i know where you guys are throughout the debate, and can do the round justice. try not to jump all over the place. i can handle speed, but if i think that you're just trying to skew your opponents out of the round, i will call a warning "slow" or "clear". if you don't adjust, i will be angry and. (pro tip: if your opponents are going too fast for you, call "slow" or "clear" as well!)

POIs: POIs are very helpful if used in moderation. PLEASE do not be calling one every other second, because at that point, you're probably doing it to throw off your opponents, and that makes me not want to like you. i protect against new arguments brought up in the last speeches, but if you catch something, call a POO just to make sure it doesn't accidentally slip through on my flow or i don't misinterpret it as a cross-application.

speaker points (speaks): don't stress about these at all. i'm pretty liberal with speaks and will typically average a 28.5-29. i will give speaker points to a 30 if you make a well included atla/hq/jjk/f1/hamilton reference or make me laugh in your speech.

other important good stuff:

• please please please impact stuff out, like terminalize them
• give me a clear, warranted link chain as to why your plan/your opps' plan leads to impacts of some sort. do not just leave them unsaid and make me assume why something leads to climate change or death, because i won't and then we'll both be sad
• please weigh the impacts in this round. tell me which ones i should be voting for you on, and why those should be placed over your opponents' impacts
• please actually engage with your opponents arguments, don't sidestep them because as a second speaker there's literally nothing i hate more than people pretending to answer a refute and not actually saying anything of substance.

that's the end of my rather long-winded paradigm! good luck, and you guys are going to do amazing, so have fun :))

I started judging in the 2019-2020 season, and my judging experience includes over 50 rounds. I've mostly judged Parli but also the other debate events like Policy and Lincoln-Douglas.

I know most of the debate jargon, but I still want you to explain things in plain English. I value clear low-jargon communication in business, and I think debate should be communication practice for real life.

I can follow rapid speaking, but I appreciate organization, clarity, and carefully worded arguments. You will do better with me if you take your time and go for clarity. I look for the points that are most important or should have the most weight, so help me understand what part of your argument you think really matters.

Light theory is ok, but be prepared to carefully spell out why it applies and why I should use your theory argument in my evaluation.

This is supposed to be fun, so humor is welcome. I look forward to a great round!

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!

Hi, I am a parent judge who is new to judging debate rounds.

Things I look for:

• Logical explaining of arguments
• Good impacts
• Talking at a reasonable pace

Directing me with prompts like "you should write this down" are also going to be very useful for your side.

Bonus points for being respectful and having a positive attitude.

I am a parent judge with little to no experience in judging. I would prefer a normal/slow talking pace and clear structured arguments.

Hello!

I am a parent Judge.

I have been judging parliamentary debate since December 2023.

What school(s) are you affiliated with? Oakwood School

Were you a competitor when in school? If so, what style of debate did you do, and for how many years?

Not in debate but I grew up in Illinois and competed in the IHSA division all four years in HI and HDA ( it's duo but only humorous pieces) for 4 years and placed 3rd at Regionals in HI and was a finalist in HDA my junior year and 4th at Regionals in HI and HDA my senior year and was a Sectional finalist in both events but missed going to state by one point in each event from a judge who told us "don't break the fourth wall" when giving our introductions so I promise to be an amazing judge for you (outta spite for what that parent judge did to us lol) if I am judging any interp or duo rounds.

As far as debate goes I got familiar with debate through my previous employment with Enreach Education in Shanghai, China, and have been coaching debate for the past year.

How often do you judge debate? Almost every tournament I have students entered in.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Just a little faster than conversational

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? Yes, I will use a hand motion that is slow and smooth to signal to speak slower/clearer

Evaluating the Round

1. How do you evaluate framework in the round? I’m looking for if they directly addressed the topic, understood the basic issue, and clearly explained their position

2. Do you expect to see a value and a value criterion? Yes

3. What are your thoughts on reading plan texts, counterplans, or kritiks in LD? I think it’s okay.

4. What is most important to you when you decide who wins? What team was overall more prepared for this debate

Other Notes

In a few sentences, describe the type of debate you would like most to hear or any other things debaters/coaches should know about your judging style.

I’m there to see you do your best so put your best foot forward. This is your time to shine and show me that you have put in the work and know your facts/framework/contentions. I enjoy humorous but not snarky responses.

If I am judging Parli I am not the biggest fan of tag teaming. You should not have to rely on your partner feeding you what to say verbally when you are speaking. Be confident yourself! Passing notes to help a struggling partner is fine but when it comes to tag teaming you should be able to state your arguments and rebuttals in your own words so I am most likely going to choose whatever team has a more even balance of stronger speakers instead of a team with one strong person carrying the debate.

TLDR: be respectful, fine with theory if you explain it clearly (no K though), and I won't argue with whatever is on the flow (if it makes it on the flow)

Hello debaters!

My name is Sandy Xu and I am a sophomore at Los Altos High School. Parli is my main event, though I am familiar with PF and LD. However, since they aren’t my main events, I’d prefer it if you explain things a bit more and call out any rule breaks.

Judging Preferences:

• I will be flowing during the round.
• Feel free to spread, but if I'm unable to catch it then it will not be flowed and won't be part of my decision
• Please signpost because it enables me to follow your logic better
• I am a "Tabula Rasa" judge, meaning I won't argue with whatever is on the flow. For example, if you say the sky is green and your opponents don't respond, I will assume for the context of the debate that the sky is green.
• I will be voting on flow so please remember to weigh the impacts.
• Please mention at least once in the round a framework and how I should weigh the round
• Case debate is preferred, can evaluate theory but not Ks.

Parli Specific Preferences:

• I don't protect the flow against new arguments, you have to call a point of order
• I will stop time on Points of Orders
• Feel free to do whatever about POIs, take it, don't, it doesn't affect my ballot

Speaker Points (if it’s exists):

• I give speaker points on a scale from 26-30
• You start with 28 speaker points and I will give you more or less depending on how well you speak
• If I am unable to decipher what you are saying, you will lose speaker points
• Being rude will also cause you to lose speaks
• You can gain speaker points by speaking in an even, consistent rhythm and speaking without using filler words such as um, like, ok, etc
• If you would like, you may use humor in your speech. I will add speaks if you give an engaging speech as long as it doesn’t sacrifice the information it provides.
• Just a note: I do not give speaker points based on how well you debate, only how well you speak

Good luck everyone! I look forward to seeing you debate!

- Sandy