Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

I am a lay judge. I have been judging for around 3 - 4 years for parliamentary debate.

Hello,

I'm a first time judge.
I will give my comments/results at the end of the debate.
Please keep track of your timings and cameras ON.
All the best!

Brett Boelkens

Background

LD/Parliamentary Debate Coach - Cogito Debate — (2021-Present)

LD Brief Publisher - Kankee Briefs — (2019-Present)

Varsity Policy Debater — UNLV (2019-2021)

Varsity Policy/LD Debater — NWCTA (2017-2019)

TLDR

-Put me (brettboelkens@gmail.com) on the email chain (yes, even if its LD)

-Not a good K hack judge - I don’t know as much lit and think framework args are true. I won't not vote for a K, BUT don't be mad if I miss something or think aff centric rejoinder is cool

-Line by line muy importante. Keep speeches organized if at all possible and try to clean it up if you can.

-Tech > truth - I try to not intervene unless someone is intentionally excluding someone from the debate space

-Signpost please

-I will yell “CLEAR” on Zoom if you’re unclear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t be blamed for less the suburb flows.

-Theory on any issue is okay, BUT slow down and give extra pen time theory. This includes more policy oriented arguments like ptx theory, but not LD trix like permissibility or NIBS.

-None of my preferences are hard rules and are just what I am biased towards. I will vote on any issue if need be

-Inserting rehighlighted ev is cool

-Write prep down on Zoom chat

-Tell me if I need extra paper for say an long K overview

-Creativity in quality arguments is rewarded

-Quote I stole from Gomez:

I will not give up my ballot to someone else. I will not evaluate arguments about actions taken when I was not in the room or from previous rounds. I will not vote for arguments about debaters as people. I will always evaluate the debate based on the arguments made during the round and which team did the better debating. Teams asking me not to flow or wanting to play video games, or any other thing that is not debate are advised to strike me. If it is unclear what "is not debate" means, strike me.

-I'm chill and don't care if you need a second for tech issues or to take care of something

-Quote I stole from Danban that is somehow now relevant, “ [I] won't vote for any argument that promotes sedition.”

-If you have any questions about my paradigm / RFD, please email me or just ask in person.

Disadvantages

-I’m pro ptx DA gang though to be honest 99% of them are made up and don’t make sense

-Recency for ev helps. For example, please update your July econ UQ answers you cut at camp

-Utilize DA turns case and link turns case arguments more

Counterplans

-I usually err neg on CP theory since borderline abusive fiat debates can be fun

-Its probably best to functional and textual competition

-I think CP's with internal net benefits are neato

-Intrinsic and severance perms are more acceptable if the CP isn't as theoretically legitimate

-I’m cool if you tell me to judge kick the CP, but the 2AR can object if they want to

Kritiks

-Wouldn't suggest running them in front of me

-Ks should have specific links to the aff

-Links of omission aren’t a thing

-I like more consequence centric K debate (i.e. cap good/bad) as opposed to high theory Baudy quackery

Theory / T

-Hot take - most T args are rubbish except T-FMWK.

- Current thoughts on common theory issues

-Competing interpretations good and most affs T should be read against aren’t reasonable

-Functional limits args aren’t convincing if the plan is able to spike out of common DA's

-Condo good

-PICS good

-International fiat good

-Consult Process CP bad

-Perfcon not necessarily bad, but does likely justify severing representations

-PIKS bad

-Word PIKS bad

-RVIs bad

-Disclosure good, but probably not good enough to be something worthwhile voting on

-Caselists and specific explanations of what can / cannot be read under a certain interp are helpful

CX Specific Notes

-I think T-Substantial gets a bad rap - its likely necessary against most fringe affs unless you’re going for the topic K or disad, or very contrived CPs (not that there’s anything wrong with that

-I default to util = trutil and think teams running structural violence affs still need to answer disads regardless of the framework debate

LD Specific Notes

-I don't care if it's a lay debate or not, set up an email chain.

-Separate theory under/overview jazz from solvency and/or framework arguments

-Nailbomb affs are bad - theoretical spikes aren’t super justified

-Same with chunks analytical paragraphs that suck to flow - separate args please

-Since LD is weird, I’m cool with new theory args at any point in the debate if it is justified (e.g. judge kick the CP or the 2NR reexplaining the K as a PIK). Otherwise, try to introduce almost all theory arguments to the 1AC, 1NC, and 1AR

-I know a lot about whatever the current topic may be even though I do CX - you don't need to over explain stuff and can be somewhat fast and loose when explaining certain topic specific knowledge

-If you're second flight, I'm down if you come in and watch first flight. Otherwise, please be there when first flight ends, and know who your opponent is in case I don't know where they are.

-quote from Alderete I liked “LAWs Specific* References to The Terminator will be considered empirical evidence. References to The Matrix will not, because that is fiction.”

I am a parent judge with two years of judging experience

General Preferences:

Don't speak too fast

Be concise

Time yourself

Emphasize important points with pauses!

PF:

I care about how you speak

Make your contention names clear when reading your case

Make your opponent's contention names clear when you are refuting them, and be specific as to what you are refuting.

Make sure all arguments are responded to

I am a parent judge. I had some debate experiences in the past and I have also given many speeches to a variety of audiences in the past. It is important to ensure your arguments are sound, relevant and coherent. In addition to elaborate your arguments with evidence, ensure to address your opponent's points clearly and logically.

Speak clearly and in a reasonable speed.

Be on time, and dress appropriately.

Show respect to each other.

and finally, relax and have fun.

I look forward to seeing you at the tournament.

Be respectful of your opponents

Organize your thought before speaking and clearly articulate your arguments in normal speed of speech

Keep your position without deploying your opponents' plan with slight modification

Teams who manage to defend more key contentions will get more points

Hello! My name is Gi Colby. I have been on the speech and debate circuit for over 6 years. I competed in Extemp and Congress in high school, and now I compete in IPDA at the college level. Congress was my main event in high school, and I competed at the likes of Harvard and TOCs and was a finalist at GMU, Sunvitational, and Princeton. I am currently an assistant coach at Tierra Linda Middle School in California, and I work under Marty De to coach events like PF, Parli, Congress, World Schools, and informative events. My former school affiliation was Western High School, and my current university that I attend is the University of Florida.

But enough about my debate career, I would like to emphasize what I like in events.

For interpretation events such as HI and Duo, I like to be entertained. I am not so much of a technical judge with these events as I do not have much experience with them, but I do know the basics, and in general, I just want a well-polished piece that makes me feel something, and a speaker who is great as using gestures and their body language to put a piece together. I do not coach in these events, so I am not as experienced.

With informative and OO, which I do coach in, I like a piece that is meaningful and has a topic with depth. I also value organization and excellent speaking; in fact, I would go as far as to say that I value speaker quality over topic choice. I want you to change my opinion on something or teach me something new; that is the point of these events.

With impromptu, extemp, and Parli, I like a speaker who can think on the fly and is casual about it. All of these events are centered around a lay judge, meaning that the judge has no clue what you are talking about, so I want you to be able to convey and explain the topic and its points effectively. I want to go out of a round as a judge and understand what you are saying. Specifically Parli, I value a team that can "have a conversation" with the other teams' points, meaning that they refute all of the other team's points while staying clear and concise. I also am more of a flow judge in Parli if we are speaking technical terms. Again, I value a good speaker in all events, but in general, I will rank high if you are put together, speak well, and have excellent linkage.

For Congress, SPAR, and PF, the topics that I know the most about, I value refutation. These are called debate events for a reason; if you debate well, have clash, and interact with other speeches in the round well, you have my vote. If you are the first negation in Congress, I expect you to have a basic refutation if you are on the high school level. I want a person who can argue well but also remain collected and composed. I will drop you if you yell at someone else in round. Specifically for Congress, I do not give the winning rank to POs, however, I do respect them enough to give an in-between rank. For PF, I want a well-structured Final Focus, and specifically in this event, I will consider individual performance as well as team performance.

For World Schools (as it is an exception to everything here),I do tend to value the things that you are judged on, like style, content, and strategy. I like a team that is put together, and works well together as a unit, but also has great refutation and a solid framework to the round. I also value speaking more here than at other events because a team that enunciates and has pauses in the right areas is a team for me that speaks great. Like Parli, I am more of a flow judge, but more accommodating to what is going on in the structure of this event. But overall, if you speak clearly, have great points that go with my flow, and you all work cohesively as a team, you have my ballot.

In general, what I value is a good speaker who is polite and fair, but also suited to their event, meaning debate events can argue well, informative events inform me as a judge, etc. Also, I don't particularly appreciate spreading in any event, so I will not tolerate that. I am not scared to drop you if you are rude because regardless of the event, everyone should have respect for each other as basic human beings. But, just to wrap things up, I want you to be passionate about what you are talking about and convey that passion to me. Best of luck!

Don't go too fast. Be clear and concise.

Be respectful to your opponents. It goes a long way! I do not tolerate homophobic, racist, or sexist comments.

Email Chain: traviscornett16@gmail.com

Remember to have fun!

Summary

It’s your debate, I’m down to hear any argument. Comfortable with case/K/T/tricks/phil in roughly that order, but happy to evaluate any argument you make (including rejecting the res). As a debater, I went for a roughly even mix of K/case in tech rounds. Speed is fine if your opponents can handle it. Weighing and warranting win rounds. Be respectful to everyone in the round. Call the POO, articulate the cross-application, make the debate as explicit as possible for me. Email p.descollonges@gmail.com.

Background

I competed in parliamentary debate for six years, mostly at Nueva. I was most successful at tech parli, but also found success at both NorCal and Oregon lay tournaments (see bottom of paradigm for notable results if that matters for your prefs for some reason—it probably shouldn’t). I also debated 4 NPDA tournaments last year. I’m a sophomore at UChicago and coach for Nueva. You can reach me at p.descollonges@gmail.com. To prevent this paradigm from being too unwieldy, I’ve only included actionable preferences (i.e. preferences that have a clear impact on what arguments you should be making). Outside of these explicit preferences, I strive to evaluate all arguments fairly, but if you’re interested in my specific thoughts on an argument, feel free to ask me before/after the round (e.g. whether I personally like condo—I’m more than happy to evaluate it, but I also think condo bad is underused).

NON-PARLI EVENTS (feel free to skip if you are a parli debater!!):

I'm fine with speed up to ~300 wpm. If you're in PF, go as fast as you want. For LD, feel free to spread, I'll slow if needed. For policy, you'll probably need to cut speed, but feel free to ramp and I'll slow when I need to—just give me pen time and a speech doc.

I do not know your event. I do not know your norms. I'm sorry about that! I'll do my best to evaluate your round still. Regardless of event, I will vote on clearly articulated framework/weighing/sequencing claims ALWAYS, especially if I'm not comfortable with your event. In general, I assume defense cannot win rounds. I default to a net benefits/other offense-based framework, I'm willing to evaluate stock issues framing but am probably awful at it and need a justification for it.

My lack of knowledge about norms is not an excuse to be sketchy. I am more than happy to look up the (conviniently nationally codified!) rules for non-Parli events if something feels wrong to me. This doesn't mean I'll drop you for reading a K aff (because hopefully you're reading implicit or explicit args that breaking rules is good if there's a rule against your position); but it does mean that you shouldn't expect to get away with e.g. gross speech time violations. I'll generally defer to anything both teams seem to agree on if both teams seem comfortable and I am unfamiliar with the event, unless you try to convince me to give you a double win or something in that vein.

I am a parli person. This does not mean I don't care about evidence. I have a low threshold for ballot comments about sketchy evidence. I have a much higher, but still comparatively low, threshold for intervening on evidence ethics. I have an extremely low threshold for not voting on evidence your opponents call out as sketchy if it is sketchy. I will read cards necessary to decide my ballot (yes, this includes in PF.) I will not vote against you because e.g. you citing a specific sub-conclusion that helps you from a study that argues generally in the opposite direction unless your opponents point it out, in which case I will read the card. I will affirmatively intervene to disregard or vote down blatantly fabricated, misconstrued, or excessively powertagged evidence in compliance with NSDA evidence rules (7.4.A/B/C). I will also strive to comply with NSDA rules for formal challenges (7.2/3), but am not experienced with this procedure. Please just be ethical with your evidence.

Feel free to read my parli paradigm if you want an idea of more specific preferences! Ask me before the round if you have any questions.

PARLI:

Logistics

I hate protected time, but will grudgingly accept that some tournaments use it. It’s ultimately up to the speaker—I will not intervene if the speaker wants to take a POI during protected time. I will follow tournament rules on grace periods, but grace periods aren’t speech time—please don’t make new arguments. I will disregard them.

Call the POO. I protect in the PMR, but give the benefit of the doubt to the speaker unless a POO is called. Incorrect answers to a POO do not waive this protection. I do not protect in the LOR, because there are situations where the aff would prefer I not protect—call the POO if you want me to drop the arg. In novice/beginner rounds, I reserve the right to protect.

Please don’t shake my hand. I don’t care if you sit, stand, etc.—as long as I can understand you, you’re fine. I don't care what you're wearing.

I’ll give at least one of oral or written feedback depending on the specific circumstances of the round, defaulting to a longer oral RFD with a summary in the ballot. You are welcome to record anything I say after the round and/or request I write it out in the ballot. I will try to get substantive and substantial feedback to you in all circumstances—if the tournament bans disclosure and/or we’re running on a tight double-flighted schedule, expect a longer ballot. My preference is to give both an RFD in which I explain how I analyze the arguments in the round and individual speaker feedback, but in complicated outrounds especially, there’s a chance I won’t get to individual speaker feedback. If you’re specifically curious, always feel free to ask. I’m open to postrounding, but if I’m talking to you, I can’t change my ballot. If you think there was a genuine equity issue in the round and I've already submitted my ballot, the person to talk to is the tournament equity director, not me.

I’ll ask for any information I need for my ballot (e.g. speaker positions). No double-wins, no double-losses except in rounds with equity issues.

Speaker Points

If the tournament seeds based on speaks (speaks, -1HL, or z-score) as the first tiebreaker for teams with the same number of wins, I’ll default to 29s (or as close as possible). I’ll give 30s to anyone who impresses me, particularly with strategic argumentation. I will not hesitate to drop your score as a clear signal that I disapprove of some behavior (see equity section below), but will not go below 29 due to mistakes or perceptions of you as a “weaker” debater.

If the tournament does not seed based on speaks as the first tiebreaker, I’ll give speaks in the ~26.5-29.7 range in most rounds. You’ll get higher speaks for good strategic calls, clean argument execution, and cool extemporaneous warranting. Arguments I like that I haven’t heard before are 30s. I won’t go below 26.5 except as a statement of active disapproval (i.e. if you get a 26.5 or below, your debating was not bad/sloppy/inexperienced, it was problematic).

Equity

Please strive to be a good person in round and out of round. Be respectful to your opponents. I will stop the round if necessary to protect any participant in it. If you are uncomfortable, I’d appreciate it if you communicated that to me (or the tournament staff!) in some way.

Misgendering your opponents will result in lost speaker points at minimum and a round loss if egregious and/or intentional. This is also true for gendered/racialized/etc. negative comments or behavior. As a white man, I don’t have a great way to evaluate the exact harms of specific behaviors, so I’ll generally defer to preferences expressed by affected individuals in dicey situations and/or go to the tournament.

Regardless of current literature on the net effect of content warnings, in the context of the debate rounds, content warnings seem clearly net-good in terms of their risk-reward tradeoff. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round better for you!

Case

I love case debate. I wish more people did case debate. Good case debate will make me very happy as a judge. That means clear arguments with clear impacts, good interaction with your opponents arguments, and a clear (and preferably explicit) articulation of what offense will win you the round. Warranting is also key. Arguments with well-explicated warrants backing them up will almost always beat arguments without warrants.

The best way to win a close case debate is weighing. The best way to win a close weighing debate is to do metaweighing. Please tell me whether I should prefer e.g. evidence or logic. Please explain to me how that applies to your arguments specifically. If you do this, you will win 90% of the case debates I have seen.

I’d love to see more link turns. I’d love to see more uniqueness leveraged after the PMC/LOC. I’d love to see more warrants on internal links.

CPs

Down for anything. Win the theory debate. I’ll evaluate all CP theory I can think of. I’ll also evaluate all CPs I can think of, but please have good reasons to prefer, especially if you’re reading delay, etc. Condo is fine by default. Dispo means you can kick it if there’s no offense by default. PICs are fine by default.

Advantages to non-mutually-exclusive CPs are not offense (or defense). Advantages to mutually-exclusive CPs are black swans, but I’m open to hearing why they’re offensive. Perm debates are good, but please don’t say anyone is “stealing” anyone’s advantages.

Evidence

Please do not fabricate evidence. Please do not plagiarize unless the tournament requires you to do so (please reference evidence you use rather than presenting it as original analysis). If the tournament empowers me to do so, I will check your evidence after submitting my ballot, and go to tab/equity if I discover something that seems like an intentional fabrication. Obviously, you have limited prep—mistakes are human, and I won’t hold them against you.

If you give me author’s name/date/source for a claim, you’ll likely win contests over whether that literal claim is true or not. This does not modify the strategic position of the claim in the round. If you do not give me a citation for evidence, I will treat your claim as a claim. Given that I try to be tabula rasa, this is normally fine (i.e. in most debates, it won’t matter if you cite a source for the US unemployment rate).

Ks

I like hearing good K debate! I really like hearing new shells, well-thought-out strategies, good historically-backed warranting, and solid links. I really dislike hearing canned shells from backfiles you don’t understand.

I like KvK debate. I am open to rejecting the res, I’m also open to framework. I have a high threshold on Ks bad theory from the aff, but would consider voting for it.

I’m most familiar with Marx, modern Marxists, and queer/disability theory, but I’m open to hearing anything—just explain it well.

Please have specific links that are not links of omission. Please give me a role of the ballot.

I’m not convinced the aff gets a perm in a KvK debate, but I’ll default to allowing it.

T/Theory

I’m happy to listen to literally anything. I generally prefer fairness on T and education on theory, but please don’t feel bound by that. Jurisdiction is absolute BS but I’ll vote for it.

I default to competing interps over reasonability, potential over proven abuse, and drop the argument when it makes sense. I do not default to theory being a priori, make the argument (especially if your opponents could plausibly uplayer theory). I do not understand why an OCI is not a separate shell, but I’ll listen to them. I’ll reluctantly vote on RVIs, the more specific the better. I view RVIs as making local offense on the theory sheet a global voting issue by default, but will appreciate and evaluate specific texts as well.

If an argument boils down to "did the team say the magic words," I'll default to the team that spent the most time on it in absence of argumentation on either side (e.g. what counts as an RVI). If that doesn't make sense to you, ignore it, and rely on good argumentation rather than linguistic technicalities.

Results

College: Second seed at NPDA nats '23;Mile High Swing 1 Finalist

Champion/Co-Champion: Evergreen ‘21, ‘22; Campo ‘21; TFT ‘17; Lewis and Clark ‘22; UoP ‘20; NorCal Champs ‘21, ‘22

Finalist: TOC ‘22

Semifinalist: NPDI ‘19, ‘20, ‘21

Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.

Email chain: myprofessionalemail47@yahoo.com, ejumico@gmail.com

Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks

-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.

-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.

-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.

-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.

Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds

-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.

-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.

-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.

-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.

-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.

-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.

-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.

-Answer theory please.

Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background

West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know so you need to tell me what I need to vote on verbatim. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.

Round specificities

CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.

T-team:Ok.

Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.

Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.

I am a parent judge; I'll take notes but won't be flowing, so be extra careful about signposting since that's the only way I can keep track of arguments.

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.

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 300 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

I'm currently a freshman at UC Berkeley, studying Computer Science. My primary event was Policy, which I competed in for four years at Silver Creek High, finishing off my debate career by winning the NCFL Championship in 2021. I also did a bit of LD and Extemp on the side and did some PF before high school so I'm more than capable of judging those events.

Pronouns: any pronouns

Put me on the email chain: dakshjain@gmail.com (feel free to email me after the round if you have any questions too)

SVUDL Ryan Mills Invitational Specific Notes:

I have not kept up with any of this year's topics, so assume I have 0 topic knowledge. Explain acronyms and any particularly confusing link-chains. Also, if your opponent is only used to lay debate, be as accommodating as possible. My biggest pet peeve is when teams think they can win an easy ballot by spreading an unprepared team out. Just because I am a somewhat technical judge does not make that alright. So if even just one of the teams is more comfortable with lay debate, I will default to that style of judging paradigm.

NDF PF Specific Notes:

I'm one of the LD lab leaders, so I don't have a lot of topic knowledge, but I've also debated for 4 years, so I have a pretty decent idea of what's going on with NATO / the Baltics. Most of the stuff below is specific to Policy / circuit LD, but I still recommend you read it to understand what kind of judge I am.

Even if you disclosed to each other before the rounds, I want access to the documents, it makes sorting any claims on evidence far simpler.

If you need to call for evidence, that's prep. I refuse to continually start and stop the timers for you to call for evidence. And on that note, don't save all of your prep for the final focus at the cost of decent rebuttals. Use your prep as needed.

Also, please properly extend your arguments, and do line-by-line work. You'd think I wouldn't have to say this stuff, but you'd be surprised.

Other than that, be respectful (especially during crossfire), and have fun y'all!.

Random Notes:

If at any point, anyone in the round is uncomfortable due to the actions of myself or the opponents, please let me know, and I will stop the round in order to resolve the issue. I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind and will not refrain from giving you an auto-loss, 0 speaks, contacting tab, etc depending on the severity of your actions. Please hold me accountable for the same.

I prefer if arguments are consistent across flows. IE. don't run a Cap K with a DA that has an econ impact. Probably won't factor in my decision unless the opposing team reads PrefCon convincingly enough, however I thought I'd mention it.

Flashing / Emailing is not prep, but if I think you're stealing prep I will call you out on it.

If you have pretyped analytics, please send them out. Especially during online debate, it just makes things easier.

Please keep your camera on if possible. It allows me to tell if you are stealing prep.

Tell me if you have any tech issues, and we can try to sort them out. Don't worry about using prep for that.

Preface:

I like smart debates. Show me your analytical skills rather than how fast you can spread. I will be flowing, and will be considering the line by line to an extent, however you will always be better off making a few well thought out arguments, rather than 50 crappy ones. I also think that analytics are severely underused, and with the right explanation, you can overcome any evidence. Past that I will vote on anything (provided it is not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc), so run what you are comfortable with, but be sure you're explaining everything throughout the round, and condensing down to only your best arguments. By the end you should be laying out my ballot for me, and telling me why you win. THIS MEANS IMPACT CALC.

T:

As with all other arguments, I will try to be neutral about this, however, I will say after seeing every bad time suck T violation in the book, your time is better spent elsewhere. That is of course unless, there has been actual abuse, and you've lost significant ground. If this occurs, your speech should make it explicitly clear, what you could not run as a result of the violation.

Theory:

Again I will vote on anything, and after all of the BS I've seen, PerfCon and Condo could very well be convincing in the round. Just be sure that (just like with T), there has been actual abuse, and be ready to explain it well.

CPs:

One of the most underutilized portions of traditional policy debate. And especially with this topic, there is almost always going to be some CP that will net you offense. I prefer case specific / advantage CPs that are well researched, over the generics states CP, but again, run what you are comfortable with. Also just because this is something I used to pull a lot, I kind of love the cheeky one line, no solvency, CPs, assuming they make logical sense. Be careful about theory on those, however, as I will remove my bias from weighing that side of the debate.

DAs:

Most DAs are trash. Period. Y'all are still out here on the goddamn CJR topic, claiming that Trump is going to get credit for something that he is vehemently opposed to, and thus we should do jack sh*t to help marginalized populations? K. Can you tell I don't like politics? Like I've said 50 times already, I'll vote on anything, but you better have a good link story or some strong analytics can cause your politics DA to come tumbling down. THERE IS SUCH THING AS 0% RISK. I think DAs can definitely be great, you just need to make sure that everything makes logical sense. Extra points if the DA is creative in some way, or is specific to the AFF.

Ks:

I like watching K rounds, however I will say that you might loose me in some of the lingo. I've been doing debate for long enough to know a lot of the concepts from the major Ks, however the amount of literature I have actually read is much less broad. Specific links are your friend, and I especially love if you can pull out specific lines from the 1AC that link. The impacts are normally solid on Ks, however I think the alt is often forgotten. There are certainly instances where the K can function without the alt, however, if the alt doesn't solve, this is often a great net benefit to the perm, or a possible indictment of their thesis. Point being that it can really go either way, and really depends on how both sides leverage it.

K AFFs:

No real preference here. I will certainly listen to K AFFs, and I will certainly listen to T/FW + Cap K against it. KvK debates or any more creative approach to the debate would be fun, but the tried and true methods are tried and true for a reason.

Case:

Everyone sleeps on case, but case debate is where it is at. It is legitimately the most interactive part of a debate, and thus I am willing to weigh case highly. I try to be reasonable on this, so I would really still like some offense (could even be a case turn), but depending on how the debate goes, the AFF might have 0% solvency in my eyes.

I value clear speaking and good speaking style - don't talk too fast, good speaking style is essential.

Make sure you have good content with with both evidence and reasoning. When it comes to these two elements, reasoning is more important. However, make sure you have evidence to back up your claims.

Make sure to impact out your contentions, and signpost clearly throughout your speeches.

Please respect everyone in the round. Be polite to your teammate and your opponents - I will dock speaker points if I observe someone being unnecessarily rude.

If you choose to run a counterplan, make sure that you explain why it's a better solution and link it to your points.

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly (refer to the NSDA evidence rules). i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if you ask me to, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

I am a parent judge. I prefer organized, consistent, clear, and logical explanations.

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.

I am new to judging. Please keep track of your timings. I would like you to talk slowly so that I can follow.

please be respectful!

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.

I debated parli in HS for DVHS and was mostly a caseish debater but i enjoy a well-run and explained flow debate

I would prefer if you didn't spread

If you want to run k or t, explain thoroughly what it is and what it means

I weigh on the weighing mechanism unless told otherwise

I will only protect the flow in JV/Novice, I expect open to be able to catch new args in 3rd and POO

I also really like terminalized impx

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.

TL;DR - Be nice and have fun!!! I prefer technical case debate, but I'll do my best to evaluate any arguments you present. I consider myself tech over truth. I'm usually most persuaded by strategic arguments, good weighing, and doing a good job explaining how arguments that your opponents dropped put you ahead at the end of the round. Theory is cool, and I will vote for frivolous theory if you win it, but I'll probably be sad. Ks are cool too, but I feel less confident about my ability to properly evaluate them. It's probably best to assume that I'm not familiar with your K lit, and I probably won't vote for an argument I don't understand :(

Introduction/Background

Hey! Shaurya's partner speaking (or typing, I guess)! Welcome to the whimsical world of my probably bland debate opinions (by norcal parli standards at least). Prepare yourself for a few possibly lukewarm takes?!?!?!

But first, a little background: My name is Evan and my pronouns are he/him. I was a Mountain View Los Altos parli debater for about 5 years. I dabbled a tiny bit in LD, PF, Policy, and World Schools back in the day for maybe a few months each. I also did duo interpretation for 3 years before high school (I highly recommend doing duo btw it was probably the most fun I had in speech and debate ever, sorry parli).

I mostly did lay and technical case debate, but I occasionally ran some theory (mostly in response to other theory or Ks), and I ran one K aff with my partner in a few rounds (which I helped write, but it was mostly my partner's work). I've watched and been in a few dozen K rounds so I'm familiar with their general structure and some of their many flavors, but it was never really my thing.

I'm currently a freshman in college studying environmental economics and policy (but don't worry I only understand basic microeconomics, I still have no idea how the stock market works or what it means when the fed raises interest rates).

Also, this paradigm might be long, so feel free to just read the tl;dr and the underlined parts for the important information. The not-underlined stuff isn't really necessary, it's just there in case one of the underlined things wasn't clear or in case you want to know more about my judging philosophy (and because I'm just very bad at being concise whoops).

And, if you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round! I tried to explain most of the debate jargon I use in this paradigm, but I'm sure I didn't really explain everything, so please ask if there's a word/phrase you're not familiar with or if anything is unclear (my goal here is to make my debate opinions understandable, so really you'll be doing me a favor).

How I Reach My Decisions

I usually make my decisions by following these steps:

1. Order the layers in the debate round

Common layers in a round are case, K, and theory. This is, of course, not an exhaustive list. Anything can be a separate layer if you give me a reason it should be weighed before other parts of the debate and give me a reason that the resolution of the arguments in that layer should be able to decide the round regardless of the outcomes in all the layers below it. Everything starts on the same layer by default. If you want me to put anything (including Ks and theory) above anything else, you need to give me a reason I should! The reason can be simple, but I won't fill it in for you.

If the term "case layer" isn't familiar to you, I just mean the part of the debate that has to do with the implications of the plan after we imagine it passes. Often, the whole debate is in the case layer.

I'll first go through the following steps with the top layer (and then with go through them with the layers below if necessary).

The top layer is just the layer I decide is at the top of my order based on the arguments in the round.

2. Determine the weighing mechanism I'm using for the given layer

Win an argument telling me why I should use your weighing mechanism, and I'll use it! I default to net benefits on the case layer and K layer if neither team gives me a weighing mechanism (but usually the debaters give me a different weighing mechanism for the K layer). I default to competing interpretations on the theory layer if neither team gives me a weighing mechanism.

3. Order the impacts in the layer

This order depends on the debate. Tell me what this order should be by weighing your impacts in the round! See the "weighing" section for more info.

4. See who's winning the debate on the top impact (and then the impacts below it if necessary)

If there's a clear winner of the top/most important impact, they'll usually win the round, especially if a team wins arguments that the top impact outweighs everything else in the round. For example, if both teams have environmental impacts, and both teams agree that the environment is the most important issue in the round, I'll most likely vote for whichever side I feel is better for the environment (based on the arguments in the round).

If aff wins the top impact, but neg wins all the other impacts, and all the other impacts combined outweigh the top impact, neg could (and theoretically should) still win. The only problem is that it's often hard to quantitatively compare impacts (so it's hard for me to tell if all the other impacts combined outweigh the top impact). If each impact is terminalized, and all the other impacts clearly add up to a bigger number than the top impact, then I'll almost certainly vote for neg (in this scenario). But, if I can only qualitatively/vaguely tell the order of the impacts, and few or none of them have actual numbers attached to them (and no argument is made in the round that the other impacts combined outweigh the top impact), the round will probably be a toss-up. I'll probably try to quantify each impact based on the implications of arguments in the round, but if these numbers aren't stated this is basically judge intervention. The more I have to intervene, the less confident I usually feel about my ballot, so the most likely outcome of this will probably be me voting for the winner of the top impact (to avoid intervening and quantifying every impact so that I can compare them). To avoid this, quantify your impacts if you can and, most importantly, weigh your impacts!

5. If a winner isn't decided based on this layer, I move to the layer below it and repeat steps 2 through 4. I keep doing this until I find a winner!

My Thoughts on Decisions and RFDs

Disclaimer: To be honest I can't think of a case where my opinions in this section would actually affect my decision. I just think if I were still debating I would've liked to hear these things. So if you want you can skip it, but also I'd really appreciate if you give at least the underlined parts a quick read I think this can be important stuff to hear for many debaters.

Ok here's my first possibly lukewarm take: I think debate is an educational game, but it's a subjective (educational) game of persuasion. In other words, debate is more like apples to apples than it is like chess. You can't look at all the moves/arguments made in a round and know without a shadow of a doubt who won at the end.

I think in almost every round there's a valid RFD (reason for decision) for either side. If that's true, I think it follows that any decision about who "won" is really just an opinion. So I think, ultimately, no matter how tech over truth or tabula rasa a judge is, rounds are won by persuading a judge to believe that your arguments won. It just happens to be the case that I'm usually most persuaded by strategic arguments, good weighing, and doing a good job explaining how arguments that your opponents dropped strengthen your case or put you ahead at the end of the round.

That also means all RFDs, mine included, are really just opinions. As with any opinion, I'd ask you to hear it out, but you have no obligation to agree. My advice is to take from it only what's valuable to you. Regardless of whether I voted for or against your arguments, check if there's anything in my RFD that you can use to become an even better debater.

Also notice that I'm not voting for or against you, I'm just voting for or against the arguments you made in that round. There is, of course, so much more to everyone than the arguments they make in a 60-minute debate round on a silly parli topic!

Also, remember that I'm human and I make mistakes. Some of my opinions are more well-founded than others. If you felt you won that round, then walk out of that round feeling like a winner! I can't stop you! And if you felt you lost that round, walk out of that round ready to become an even better debater and kill it in your next round! Regardless, and most importantly, I hope you also walk out of that round feeling like you learned something and had some fun along the way!!

What do I think is a strategic argument

I know I said one of the things I'm most persuaded by is a strategic argument, and I know that's a little vague, so I figured I'd try to briefly explain what I meant here. I don't have an exact definition of a strategic argument, but in general, I think a strategic argument is composed of a clear claim, good evidence to support that claim, and an implication that is explained well in the context of the round.

In my opinion, a clear claim just means I can easily understand the gist/thesis of the argument. Usually, that means the team presenting the argument gave me a clear and consistent summary of the argument across their speeches. In the first speech, this means presenting the pieces of the argument in a logical order. In the second speech, overviews or other quick summaries of your arguments and why you're winning the round are helpful. The last speech is probably the most important place to make the claim of your argument crystal clear since I think the best final speeches are ones that give a simple summary of the round and why their arguments are winning.

Good evidence to support your claim just means having a variety of well-explained reasons that your claim is true. If you present things like statistics or historical facts, be sure to explain their relevance to your claim/argument.

To explain your implication well in the context of the round, don't just tell me why your argument is true, be sure to tell me why your argument means I should vote for you. Better yet, tell me how your arguments are more important than your opponents' arguments or prove their arguments wrong. Set yourself up to do this by anticipating what arguments your opponents will make and designing your case in a way that makes it easy to respond. To me, that's really at the core of building a strategic argument.

How to win arguments (at least in my book)

In my opinion, the best ways to prove your argument beats your opponent's argument are:

• Leveraging dropped arguments! I will consider fully dropped arguments to be 100% true. Given that, tell me how the dropped argument proves that your opponent's argument is wrong in this debate. But remember, (at least in my opinion) an argument consists of a claim, at least one warrant, and an implication. Be warned: even if an argument is conceded, I probably won't vote on it if it doesn't have each of those 3 parts!

• Weighing! Tell me why your warrants (logical or "cited") are better than your opponent's warrants and/or tell me why your argument matters more. For more explanation, see the "Weighing" section of this paradigm.

• Using "even if" scenarios! This means tell me why you're winning "even if" I believe that their argument (or at least some part of their argument) is true. Often your argument can't win if I believe everything they say is true, but do your best to pick as many parts of their argument as possible and explain why your winning even if I believe all those parts you picked!

Weighing

Weigh your impacts! If you give me valid arguments about how your impacts outweigh your opponents' impacts and they don't respond, you'll probably win!

Do metaweighing, if you're into that! In other words, tell me which weighing mechanism I should look at first! That means making arguments like magnitude should be considered over/before probability, probability should be considered over/before magnitude, or timeframe should be considered over/before magnitude and probability (bonus points for doing the last one I'd be impressed)! It can make my job a lot easier (and I think whoever does the metaweighing will usually like the outcome).If you do metaweighing, make sure to tell me why you're winning under your metaweighing!

Weigh evidence/arguments! Tell me which evidence I should believe and why, especially if there are two competing pieces of evidence that are critical to the round. Since parli doesn't really have source verification, I probably won't put too much weight in comparing sources. That being said, if one piece of evidence is from a peer-reviewed study and the other is from a random blog post, point that out and tell me that your evidence is more trustworthy. If the difference in source quality is on that level, I'll tend to agree with you. You can also make arguments about things like whether historical evidence should be preferred over predictions of the future. You can make arguments about their evidence not being as applicable to the situation as your evidence. You can point out that their evidence doesn't provide a clear and logical line of reasoning while yours does. Pretty much any argument about how your evidence is better proof of your claim than theirs is will do me a big favor!

Ok back to more boring stuff. Here's how I weigh by default:

Unless arguments in the round tell me otherwise, the way I'll weigh impacts is I'll (sort of) multiply the magnitude of an impact by its probability. For example, if you're impact is 10 million dollars lost, but your impact has a 50% chance of happening, I'll consider it the about same thing as 5 million dollars lost with 100% probability. I'll determine the probability of an impact based on the strength of the link chain leading to that impact at the end of the round.

The only problem with this is that usually levels of probability can't be discerned very precisely. Typically, at the end of a round, I can only assign an impact somewhere around 100%, 50%, or 0% probability. In other words, I've never been in a round where I left thinking, "Wow, I could really tell that impact had a 37% probability!" That means I'll usually look more to magnitude to decide rounds because differences in magnitude are usually more easily discernable than differences in probability.

By default, I'll only use timeframe as a tiebreaker because, to me, its significance is even more unclear than probability. If two impacts are essentially exactly identical to me, I'll consider the one that happens later to be the smaller impact.

In terms of evidence, I'll usually consider "cited" evidence (like statistics and historical facts) stronger than logical evidence (evidence that's just your logical reasoning about why something is true), but this isn't a steadfast opinion/order. I'm definitely open to changing this belief if you win an argument about it in the round. Also, since this is parli, you don't actually have to "cite" your source (since all citations are non-verifiable in parli land). If you don't cite a source, but present something like a statistic or a historical fact, I'll still treat it as "cited" evidence.

New Arguments in the Last Speeches (LOR and PMR)

I'll do my best to protect the flow (meaning I won't consider new arguments made in these speeches), but calling the POO (Point of Order) is still appreciated!

I count new metaweighing arguments as new arguments in the last two speeches, even if they're technically "just weighing". Otherwise, I think the PMR in particular could give a billion reasons why they're winning on whatever weighing mechanism they choose and then argue that I should consider that one weighing mechanism above all else, and hypothetically they would win every round.

Other than metaweighing, I think new impact weighing/comparison is generally fair game in the last two speeches since they're supposed to be summarizing and crystalizing the round. That being said, if a new weighing claim made in the PMR ends up being a pivotal argument in my decision, I'll usually lean toward siding with the negative and stretch more to cross-apply negative arguments that could respond to this weighing claim (since the negative doesn't have a chance to respond to the PMR weighing, but the aff has a chance to respond to the LOR weighing).

Theory

I'll default to evaluating theory using competing interpretations. If you can prove that their interpretation is bad I don't really see why you need to read a counter-interpretation though. If you don't read a counter-interpretation, I'll just assume you're defending the debate status quo (which is usually just their interpretation but replace "must" or "must not" with "may or may not"), kind of like I assume the neg is defending the status quo if they don't read a counterplan. Still, the team reading theory can give disadvantages to your implied counter-interpretation, so not defending it might be an uphill battle. So, in summary, I basically just think of competing interpretations as net benefits of the interpretation.

If you read reasonability and intend to make it a key voting issue in the theory debate, try to give me a bright line. Explain what defines a "reasonable" interpretation so that I'm not deciding the theory debate based on my gut feeling about whether or not it's reasonable. An example of a bright line that Riley taught me is that an interpretation is reasonable if the team presenting it can prove the education lost by the violation outweighs the education lost by reading theory in this round (if this bright line doesn't make sense blame me not Riley I'm I could easily be remembering it wrong, but hopefully you get the gist of what I'm looking for in a bright line - just give me another clear metric I can use to decide the theory debate).

Remember when I said I'll be sad if I vote for friv theory. That's probably true in most cases where you don't know your opponents. But, if you do know your opponents and you know everyone in the round will have fun with it, then go for it! I'm not the fun police (I hope), and I'd be more than happy to try to evaluate some wacky theory arguments as long as everyone else in the round is having a good time too. It's just that, in general, my experience with friv theory at tournaments has been that the team on the receiving end usually doesn't have as much experience with tech debate and ends up not really feeling like they had a fighting chance. I'll still vote on friv theory since not doing so entirely feels like too much judge intervention which would be unfair to you. But, if both teams aren't really comfortable with it, I'll be sad.

Kritiks

Ks weren't really my thing in high school, so I don't have too many thoughts on them. I'll probably be more receptive to common sense responses than the average tech judge, even if they don't have the technical jargon commonly used in effective K responses.

Please explain your arguments clearly! Both so your opponents can effectively engage in the round, and so I can do a better job evaluating your arguments. Assume I don't know your K lit because I probably don't!

If you can tell your opponents you'll be reading a K before the round, it would be great if you do. It would be even better if you disclose your advocacy or the thesis of the K you're reading. I think the discussion and insight you get out of the round are a lot more valuable if both teams are able to effectively prepare for the debate they're about to have, and I do think it's often unfair if one team gets 0 minutes to prep responses to a K the other team spent days writing.

That being said, I think disclosure theory debates can get messy since the violation debate is hard to resolve without just taking one team's word for it. If faced with disclosure theory I'll do my best to evaluate it based on the arguments made in the round, but in all honesty, I'll probably feel forced to intervene to reach a decision on the theory shell, so I'll do my best to find something else to decide the round.

I do think I'll probably be a little more receptive to TUSfg/Framework T than the average tech judge, (but if you run framework T you'll certainly still have to work for the win).

I consider the ROB (Roll Of the Ballot) the thesis of your framework section. In my view, the arguments you make in the framework section are the evidence supporting your ROB. If your opponents effectively respond to your framework, but they don't explicitly answer your ROB, I won't consider your ROB conceded (because I'd consider the evidence behind the ROB refuted).

Other random thoughts

Please don't respond to an argument by saying, "This claim doesn't have any evidence, so you shouldn't consider it" and then moving on! They may have no evidence that their claim is right, but if you move on I'm also left with no evidence that their claim is wrong! Your evidence doesn't need to be from an online source. In my opinion, especially in parli, logic is considered evidence. So, if you point out their claim doesn't have evidence and then ALSO give me some logical reason that their claim probably isn't true, you're golden!

Counterplans can be offense because opportunity costs are still costs.

In terms of speed, I can probably handle up to 150 words per minute relatively well. If you go too far above that I might miss some things, but I'll hopefully catch the main ideas for most of what you're saying. I'll slow or clear your if I really can't keep up, but even if I haven't said anything it's best to slow down if there's anything really important that you want to make sure is on my flow and you've been going fast.

My definition of tech over truth is basically just that, if you win an argument in the round or if your opponent concedes an argument, I will believe that argument is true in the context of that round regardless of whether or not I personally think the argument is actually true. In other words, if you tell me the Moon is made of cheese, you give me any plausible logical or cited warrant (which can be as simple as "the moon has holes that look like cheese"), and your opponent concedes it, I will believe the Moon is made of cheese for the purposes of deciding a winner in that round. In my opinion, arguments consist of a claim, at least one warrant, and an implication. Even if an argument is conceded, I probably won't vote on it if it doesn't have all of those 3 parts!

Tag teaming is fine! I'll only flow what the designated/current speaker is saying though (so the current speaker will have to repeat whatever their partner said if they want me to consider it). My definition of tag teaming is when a person talks during their partner's speech, usually to give them an idea or tell them to respond to some argument.

I won't flow questions asked (or statements made) during POIs or during flex. I think POIs should not be used to make statements or arguments during your opponents' speech. They should be used for clarifying or strategic questions. In my opinion, strategic questions are questions that could strengthen an argument you want to make later based on their response. Strategic questions don't involve effectively stating the thesis of an argument you want to make. Telling them your argument during their speech only gives them more time to think of a good response, so (at least in my opinion) it's probably not the most strategic choice!

Also, I'm sorry if the formatting is messed up, I promise it looks better in the paradigm editor, but for some reason it looks like it doesn't convert well when other people view it :((

I am a parent judge.

I will drop you if you spread or run theory. I cannot evaluate circuit LD.

Signpost so I know where you are on the flow. Make sure to impact your arguments well.

Be respectful and courteous to your opponent.

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

¡Hola!

Please add me to the email chain. I DO NOT USE SPEECH DROP OR FILE SHARE

isaackudebate@gmail.com

General Info:

I view my role as an educator rather than a policymaker, and that will not change. Debate is an educative activity where we all agree to come together on a weekend to apply different solutions to solve a problem. At the end of the day, we are still learning about new subjects, or new portions of certain subject that we had not learned before.

Pronouns – They/He

Spearman High School TX 2022

University of Kansas 2026

I may look mad, but trust me I'm not!

Judge>Isaac

I competed in Congress in High School competitively, and now policy in College.

Do not use any discriminatory language or actions (Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Xenophobic, etc.)

If you have committed to the University of Kansas, please conflict me.

Online Debate:

General Rule of thumb. If my camera is off, I am not ready. Please be patient with me, and I'll be patient with you. :)

Please speak slower than usual. It's better for me to hear your args than lose them from the audio cutting out. It doesn't have to be super slow, just enough to where your audio doesn't cut out.

I don't really care if your camera is on. I'd like to see your face rather than stare at a blank screen for a debate, but you do you!

**UPDATED 10/06/2023**

Novice Debaters, the following does not apply to you. No need to stress over this event. All I ask is simply to speak as clearly, don't say anything problematic, and as fast as you can and flow the opposing arguments. Ultimately, just have fun!! :)

LD & PF:

I am not really familiar with the topic or the jargon, but if your are args are clear, are easy to flow, and are reasonable, I am all for it! Ultimately, just do what you've been doing and have fun!!

Some parts of my policy paradigm would be useful to fill in regards to speed, speaks, and the K. Do not be afraid to check it out :)

POLICY:

Speed:

I do not really care how fast you go. I would recommend that you speak as fast and as clearly as you can. No need to push yourself to hit a new speed time.

Economic Inequality Topic:

I really enjoyed the policy debates I saw at the JDI this summer. I have a few personal opinions about this topic myself, but nothing too drastic on how I view my ballot.

Few Policy Notes:

I think the 50 states Counter Plan is a good debate arg, but I need some unpacking here. I need a reason why the USFG is a bad actor and why you can fiat all 50 states to be on-board.

Evidence:

I like cards and I also like blocks. Your effort in cutting cards will not go unnoticed, but it must contribute to the debate. I like it when teams offer evidence that changes my perspective on how the debate should be looked at. You will not have my vote if you drop key evidence from the opposing side.

K:

As a K reader myself, I am a very good judge to K teams. I am fairly kept up with Latinx literature, Cap K lit, as well as some of Berlant. I just need a link to why the 1AC is bad, or I will have a hard time voting for you. I look at the K as a way to think about if the fundamentals in aff are good. I encourage the reading of Ks, but try to be as clear as you can with them.

K Affs:

I honestly like to listen to planless affs that claim their Kritique matters in the Debate. I do not want to listen to 8 mins from the 1AC and 2AC that has no impact to the debate. Basically, advocate your aff in front of me and have a good framework on how the end goal will look like.

K aff v Framework:

I think this debate is fine. I enjoy clash debates. TVAs are ok. SSD is ok. Refer to my T notes

Condo:

Kinda tricky for me. I think Condo has its issues on both sides. I ultimately view this as a tie-breaker if the debate is close, but I auto-default to Condo bad if dropped in the 2NR.

DA:

I think a DA is crucial for a policy debate. It sounds cliche but I really mean it. I think a DA should be answered because it gives me a reason why your plan, counterplan, alt, etc. is bad. If not answered/dropped, please give a good reason why it does not matter for me.

T:

I think T debate is ok, but sometimes it can get silly. I think if the aff wins that they meet the T threshold for topic, then the negative should go for their other off case and case positions.

Counter-Plans:

I like them. I think if they solve the aff's inherency better, then I'm all for it. I think multiple plank CPs can be excessive sometimes, so lets be reasonable on how many CPs you want run in front of me. I won't Judge Kick, so don't ask me to.

Speaker Points:

I judge speaker points on how clearly you speak in your speeches, if you can maintain your argument in the cross-ex, and if your args are well debated. My speaks stay around the 28 range. You will have to really aggravate me to get lower. e.g. Discriminating against the opponents, me, etc. I DO NOT tolerate that behavior and will lower your speaks/nuke them as a result.

Other/misc:

I default to judge instruction, unless if you drop condo.

Be nice to each other. I get debate is an intense game and it can get heated, but it's not fun when you are being bullies to your opponents.

Some judges to reference for the spots I have not covered: Will Soper, Luna Schultz, Dr. Scott Harris, and Dr. Brett Bricker and the rest of the KU Coaching staff.

Music is an argument. which means you should flow it.

Performance is good.

+0.3 speaks for all if you shake hands, fist bump, etc. with each others after the debate :)

Final Notes:

I look forward to listening to you all and to listening for what you stand for. I wish you the best of luck!

Lay judge, please speak slowly, focus on narrative building, and clearly explain all terms. Try to keep this round simple and concise, and focus on telling me why I should vote for your side.

For the April 2024 PF topic, please avoid discussing Israel as it is uncomfortable for me as someone who knows people impacted by the Israel Hamas conflict.

Last Updated 7/19/2024.

Pronouns: Xe/Xem/Xey. I need to be on the email chain -Nyx.Debate@gmail.com. Mostly debated the K, will listen to any type of debate.

If there is stuff in the chain you don't want shared with others, I would still appreciate it if you could email it to me separately - I'll make sure to delete the files after the round. It helps me to physically see what you are doing as I flow. If you don't want to send me stuff, you should not send me stuff.

I started debate as a novice at Johnson County Community College -> debated/coached at the University of Central Oklahoma -> Independent Debate Work -> Coached at Texas Tech -> Coached at University of Texas - San Antonio -> Current Coach at KU.

How can I make the debate better/easier for you, the debater? Let me know if you need any accommodations, I'll do my best to make them happen.

Paradigm Proper:

I will listen to any debate. Please, do whatever you do best, just explain it to me. Why is your aff/neg amazing, and why do I need to vote for it? I love impact comparison and think it should be done more. When looking at evidence comparison, if I can be persuaded that an author has a flawed epistemology, it's hard for me to justify voting for said scholarship. I'm more interested in voting on deep pieces of evidence that are solid rather than short two sentence thoughts.

I'm fine with speed, especially if I have a doc that I can follow along with. I will yell clear if I can't understand you, and on the third clear I will stop flowing.

I'm all about the game - I can go either way on condo.

I like unique PICs - the aff should be able to defend their use of rhetoric in the debate.

Evidence needs a claim, warrant, and impact. "Write my ballot for me" by making it clear to me in the last speech what really matters in the round and why I should vote on it.

Nuanced evidence explanation is key to me. If I can't figure out how the aff uniquely makes the K worse, it's an uphill battle to win the K. On the flip side, I don't think the aff should get to duck out of links by simply saying "oh, that's not us." Warranted evidence explaining why these things are true or not is critical.

Open CX is fine.

Hello, I am a parent (lay) judge.

Some of my preferences are:

1. Do not spread/speed-talk. You can speak at a fast pace as long as it clear, but I prefer a conversational speaking pace.
2. Begin rounds with an off-time roadmap (state your name, aff or neg, explain what argument your are on, what you will do in this argument). Explain any debate jargon/acronyms.
3. I would appreciate minimizing use of tech and theory, unless it is absolutely crucial. If you use it, explain your objective with it and how it relates to the case (again, explain any debate jargon).
4. I prefer clear arguments that have logical connections. Emphasize and weigh your impacts!
5. Aff should begin with a top-of-case explaining the context of the resolution.
6. Please be respectful, calm, and organized.

Good Luck!

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

Hey friends!
TLDR; 10+ years of experience coaching and competing in all formats of debate and all styles (traditional and progressive). I'm fairly open-minded to any argument that is well justified and I'm going to vote for the team that paints the best picture via their impact comparison. I want you to write my ballot for me in your closing arguments. Also please note I will not vote on any argument that isn't extended in your final speeches. If you want me to vote on something you need to extend it and tell me why I'm voting for it. Other than that, just have fun, debate is your space.

*Speaker points are arbitrary but here’s something that isn’t: If you give all of your speeches without reading cards, I’ll give you a 30 as a baseline (may still deduct a bit from this for certain things). Of course, please refer to cards and summarize your them in your own words. Evidence debate has led to people not listening to each other’s arguments and IMO it’s net worse for debate. Constant powertagging means paraphrasing theory is probably irrelevant (but I’m very open to criticisms that a team said that a card said something that it didn’t)

Here are just a few specifics about my philosophy, feel free to ask about more:

On Evidence:
I believe there is far too much emphasis on evidence in many rounds of LD and CX as of late. Cards are important for backing up a claim which specifically needs evidence (think statistics, quotes, etc). Some folks are quick to dismiss their opponent's arguments by saying "no evidence" without actually responding to the merit of the argument. Conversely, the overemphasis on evidence has made some students afraid to get up and make an argument simply because they don't have a card on it. Perhaps it is because of my background in NPDA, but I strongly believe that many claims can be made and warranted via analytics and in fact that these arguments are even preferable because they demand that debaters think on their feet and respond to the argument specifically instead of searching desperately for a card that may or may not actually verify the claim they want to make. An argument has 3 parts: Claim, Warrant, Impact. A card is one type of warrant but historical and or/material analysis is another which is just as valid and I encourage debaters to make whatever argument occurs to them so long as they can warrant said argument.

On Strategy:
In general, I don't care what you read. Debaters should make their own strategy and use whatever they think is competitive. That said, I am of the opinion that "6 off" strategies tend to be uncompetitive because no arguments are really developed and I will lean towards skepticism of neg blocks which develop a lot of new arguments because their initial constructives refused to engage the debate in depth. Quality tends to prevail strategically over quantity but I won't impose this belief onto you, if you think 6 off is more strategic, then prove it and I'll vote for it if you win. There is no K, CP, or theoretical argument I will reject outright on principle. Some arguments are likely more theoretically legitimate than others (An uncondo K is probably pretty alright and 8 condo delay CPs may not be) and some arguments are certainly more true than others but what I think is irrelevant in context of what is said in the round. Whatever it is you decide to go for, I do believe "collapsing" is good and makes debates simpler and also that arguments should be explained in context of one another. That's to say, how does "straight-up" make sense of the K, how does theory make sense (or not make sense) of the Aff, so on and so forth. Framework is the most important aspect of debate (followed by links). Tell me what my role as a judge is or the role of my ballot is and precisely how I ought to use it. I want to do as little as possible when writing my ballot and want as much of the argument as possible to be framed and explained for me. You should understand the difference between defense and offense and recognize that defense does not independently win rounds. Defense can empower offense but is not sufficient in and of itself to overcome any offense which improves upon the status quo.

*As an updated addendum to this, I would strongly prefer not to vote on violations that are alleged to occur outside of a debate round.
** A second addendum on theory - in light of some rounds that have occurred in early 2023, I'm realizing that in a debate that collapses to theory where theory truly feels like a wash, I think I'm preferring to flip to the team that didn't go for theory. This means you should use theory with me in instances that truly feel abusive. This is not to say that I won't vote on potential abuse, but it is to say you better win your shell convincingly if you intend to collapse on potential abuse

On Speed:

In general, I don't mind speed. I used to debate quite quickly, I listen to every podcast in the world on 2.0, and one of my previous partners was probably one of the fastest there ever was. That said I don't think speed should be a tool of exclusion and I do think there is a point at which speed is used (especially in evidence style debates) as a tool to lazily "warrant" an argument by reading cards that don't say what you say they say in the tagline and just hoping no one notices. Obviously, you should slow down to read taglines but even when you're "spewing" out the actual card, it should be comprehensible. This is especially true in a world of online debate which can become particularly hard to understand. I've watched some judges in a panel be too afraid to clear/slow when no one can understand a word someone is saying (especially in online debate). To be clear: I am not afraid to clear/slow you. Clear means speak more clearly, slow means I need you to slow down. I'm much more likely to say clear than I am slow as I want to hear the merits of your cards so if the card becomes an issue in a debate I can actually hear what you read. I don't mind going back to read a card that is contested but I also think that as soon as I start spending time outside the round reading, I'm now being asked to input my interpretation of what I read and apply it to what the debaters said. This quickly begins to violate the so-called "path of least resistance" that most judges are looking for. As such, my preference is to evaluate what I understood and hopefully not have to go back and read. It's the responsibility of debaters to make sure that what they're arguing is understood by the judges to the maximum extent possible. Spewing out a card at a speed you can't handle without slurring your words does not accomplish this goal. You'll get a lot further spending your time making coherent arguments everyone can understand than you will spitting nonsense to make fake claims.

*As an addendum to this, this issue has gotten a lot worse since I first wrote my paradigm. And frankly, at the highest levels (CEDA), we now see debate starting to slow back down. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like this is my preference. I'm not going to punish anyone for spreading, and I don't need you to speak your case at 2mph, "2.0 podcast" is a pretty good speed. My highest priority is understanding. Look, we are talking about some really in-the-weeds ideas in some of these debates. Debate will inevitably bastardize almost any philosophy, but I think you're going to do a lot more just interpretation of it when you slow down enough to actually explain your position and how you resolve the issues in and out of round.


If you ask me for prep, I'm just going to run your time, it's up to you to keep track of how much you're using. Flex prep is fine, but if you're going to do it, please ask your opponent and establish it at the beginning of the round. I've had some debaters ask me if flex is OK after their opponent already used some or all of their prep and this seems unfair to me. If you make an argument in CX, make sure you actually put it on the flow during your speech time.

PLEASE provide me a copy of all texts (Plans, counterplans, perms, alts, interpretations, etc)

Ground Rules:

1. Specify the amount of time each speaker will have to speak.
2. Explain the proper decorum that participants are expected to follow, such as speaking one at a time and refraining from interrupting other speakers.
3. Clarify the process for making points of information and asking questions.
4. Outline the procedure for challenging a speaker's argument.
5. State any other relevant rules or guidelines that the participants need to be aware of.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Will be scoring the debate, such as by taking into account the quality of arguments, delivery, and research
2. and aspects of the debate such as organization, persuasiveness, and evidence.

Hi, my name is Ruturaj Pathak, and I am a parent judge. I have been judging debates for 3 years now. I judge fairly in an unbiased way. I like the teams to be respectful of each other.

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as you enunciate, and everyone can understand what you are saying.

POIs: Have no more than 3 POIs per speech otherwise it is disruptive. Please use them correctly and ask them in a form of a question.

I always flow the debate and write what you speak. I judge on clear contentions, evidence that supports them and impacts. I also like clear refutes based on logic and analysis. Clear evidence strengthens your refutes.

I add 10-15 second grace period to your time to allow you to complete your chain of thought. But I will not add or write any new information presented once you pass your time limit.

TL;DR: Do whatever you would do with any other lay judge

No theory; no kritiks; please speak slowly; have clear warrants and relevant examples

Please signpost

Tagteaming allowed, but please repeat clearly what your partner says

Put me on the chain: savanareedvalizan@gmail.com

Hello!

Disclaimer: Some people, including me, have been jerks in debates and potentially ruined someone else's chance at loving the activity. Knowing I have been apart of the problem, I want to be apart of the solution. Actions that are not cool with me include but are not limited to: rude in CX, clipping cards, anti-Blackness, homophobia, sexism, etc.

Experience:

Debated for 2 years at Lawrence Free State.

In my 2nd year of debating at Emporia State. (STINGERS DOWN).

If you would like to check out what I'm familiar with, you can check out my wiki, I'm one half of Emporia KR! You can find us in 21-22 and 22-23.

Important Things:

1. I flow on paper and would consider myself less proficient at it than the average college debater.

2. I don't trust my ability to understand your evidence and how it applies to the debate and neither should you.

3. Roll of the ballot/ framing for how my ballot should operate are filters through which I will view the debate and not explicitly discussing this is both a missed opportunity AND can lead to confusions that lead to a very different decision than you are expect or desire.

Here are some of my thoughts:

T:

In general, I think these debates should be about competing interpretations. I think T should be similar to a DA with UQ, Link, I/L, and Impacts. If I think these parts of T aren't clear then... I think T is about the plan text in a vacuum, but I don't think your plan saying the word "X" is a reason why you meet the interp. I have no idea what the high school topic is, so maybe include the plan-text in the doc lol.

FW:

This debate is just T with different conventions about offense/ defense. TVAs and switch side act as cps to access the affs offense.

Theory:

I think theory debates can be so fun! Unfortunately, many of these debates are people reading blocks at each other and not a lot of actual debate happening. That is A LOT of judge intervention that I’m not sure you want me to do! Because of my own deficiencies as a debater, I’m often frustrated with the amount negative teams get away with in their sneaky counter-plans! I’m not sure if this will ever translate into any decisions on this matter, but I predict it may affect how I evaluate aff solvency deficits against tricky cps.

Kritiks:

Please tell me how your theory broadly works and then specifically apply it to the aff. I do not know a lot of tricks so try not to be too tricky. I think you'll win my ballot easily if you can spin a link specifically to the aff. I don't like to be bombarded with a bunch of cards to read after a debate to explain your theory to the other team. I think that alternative debates can be really engaging and I would love some specific example work to make it cleaner. I should have an idea of what the alt does if you think I'm gonna vote on it unless you have an offensive reason why I shouldn’t.

Disads/Counterplans/Case:

Love a good da debate! Case debates are so cool, especially offensive ones. I <3 impact turns.

Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.

What I like:

- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.

- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.

- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.

- Framework - I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).

- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.

- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.

-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.

What I don't like:

- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic. I am not a fan of spec arguments.

- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, make sure your K somehow links to SOMETHING in the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 2, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 3, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.

- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.

- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.

- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.

- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.

Speech

I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.

Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.

Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.

Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.

Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.

NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (PF, LD, CX, etc.):

Do:

-Include a value/criteria

-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)

-Communicate when you are using prep time

DO NOT:

-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)

-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other team’s case substantively)

I will vote for the team that best upholds their side’s burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.

EMAIL: kristinar@cogitodebate.com

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.

- pronouns: she/her

- background:

hii i'm anika! i'm currently a junion at san jose state majoring in business management. i did debate (parli only) all four years at washington high school and broke at a few tournaments such as Stanford and TOC:) i was an assistant coach at MVLA for 2 years as well!

some random things about my judging methods:

- content/ trigger warnings please. also please feel free to announce pronouns in the beginning of your speech/ the round if you are comfortable doing so!

- talk as fast as u need to but make sure you're breathing. i'll yell slow/ clear if need be and if the other team yells it more than 3 times & you don't stop, i'm receptive to theory arguments relating to speed.

- weighing is so so important to me. a good rebuttal is important and i really need there to be a clear analysis of how i need to vote or i will have to think a lot and i don't want to!!

- DO NOT be rude, bigoted, etc. if you are, i will stop the round, kill speaks, drop you, and/ or put in a formal complaint.

- case debate:

even with all the time i spent in debate, i've always preferred case debate over everything. just make sure to be organized and structured, make sure to sign post, have clear link stories, and terminalize your impacts!! try and have good evidence and warranting too if possible. the more interesting the argument the better, it'd just be more fun to listen to but generics are cool too if you really want/ need them for your strat.

- theory:

when used right, theory is great. i liked theory in high school so i'll be responsive to theory arguments. fair warning: i am not a fan of friv T personally but if you run it and win on it, i'll vote for it. HOWEVER, i reserve the right to drop your speaks if you run friv t and the opposing team makes the argument that you were unfair/ creating an inaccessible round. basically, even if i have to vote for you on the argument, i still reserve the right to drop speaks.

rvis are cool.

have good interps pls, i struggled to come up with good interps for a while so i like seeing people do what i could not:D

PLEASE make sure that you weigh/ layer the theory against wtv else is in the round. don't make me have to think it all through and compare it for myself bc that means judge intervention and that's bad.

- kritiks:

honestly, i've never run a K. i've watched rounds with Ks in them and have gone against a few but idk how confident you can feel in my K knowledge. with that being said, if you really want/ need to run a K, go for it. make sure it's clear, organized (if u don't sign post i WILL get lost i promise), and make sure your links are really strong and clear. if you're running something that gets really deep in philosophy, you need to do a very good job of explaining it and the connection to the round. PLEASE DO NOT USE Ks AS A TACTIC TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE OR GROUPS IN ROUNDS. basically don't be immoral.

overall, i know this isn't super in depth so if you have specific questions, feel free to ask them before the round begins!

good luck!

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!

Please be clear and concise. Do not spread as I will neither pretend I understand nor strain my brain to humor you nor flow at rocket speed just to satisfy your whim. Do not rant for too long about how abusive someone is as I am experienced enough to usually see when they are abusing you.

Background:

Hello there! I'm Stuti, and I'm a freshman at the University of Chicago. I mainly competed in Parliamentary Debate throughout high school, but I have some experience in all debate forms (World Schools, LD, Policy, PF, Congress). I also competed in extemporaneous speaking and original advocacy/oratory. I have quite a bit of experience in the NPDL-TOC circuit, and my debate partner and I were fairly successful (broke to finals at NPDL Invitational '22 and James Logan '23, qualified to TOC twice, and broke at TOC '23).

Paradigm:

Make compelling arguments, support them with relevant evidence and analysis. Flesh out your links. Engage with the other side, please provide clash in the round, so that I don’t have to intervene more than I absolutely have to. Weigh the impacts of your arguments. Make sure you provide 1-2 POIs while your opponent is speaking, also make sure to take 1-2 POIs during your speeches. If AFF’s framework is contested by NEG, I will adjudicate the round through the lens of the winning framework. A good strategy is showing why you win under both frameworks. I’ll try my best to protect the flow, but please call POOs nonetheless. Off-time roadmaps are fine with me.

Please stay on-case, unless it is absolutely necessary to stray from it. Please do not spread, it makes for a pretty miserable debate experience all-around. I’m pretty familiar with tech-style Parli, having competed in the Bay Area circuit for several years, but I do not enjoy it (debating it or judging it). I very rarely ran tech arguments offensively as a competitor, if ever. I believe that most Ks and frivolous theory arguments that I've encountered only serve to degrade and gamify the institution of debate. I sincerely believe that debate is not a game. It is a collaborative opportunity to educate, demonstrate and build knowledge, and learn how to communicate effectively. There is no worse feeling than reading a good-faith, well-researched AFF constructive and then being hit with an unnecessary, entirely unrelated, kritikal argument that’s spread at a million words per minute “just for fun.” Please don’t be those opponents.

Be kind, respectful, and accommodating. In my experience, too often, sexist and derogatory comments and behaviors are brushed off and normalized in debate rounds. Male debaters being condescending or patronizing in their interactions with their female opponents, for example, is an unacceptable behavior to me, and this will be reflected in my decision. Parli debate is a lovely community, but it has many flaws: please don’t contribute to the existing toxicity.

Debate is not a game, but it can still be fun. It’s ok to crack a joke and bring some joy and laughter into a tense debate room from time to time :) Good luck, you’ve got this!

A lengthier explanation of my stance on tech-style debate (if this matters to you):

To be clear, technical arguments do sometimes serve a legitimate purpose in debate. Theory is a mechanism to call out abuse, rule-breaking, and violations of fairness. Reading friv theory “just for fun” undermines that actual, legitimate purpose. For the most part, I will only vote for a theory shell on the grounds of actual abuse or topicality. If you don’t really want to debate the text of the resolution itself, even when it’s fair/balanced, why debate at all? Kritiks also have a specific purpose– to call out harmful assumptions made by the other side. But more often than not, they are not used for this purpose. How a K about pagan goddesses and witches is even remotely related to a topic about lethal autonomous weapons, I will never know (yes, this was an actual K run against me in a round).

I don’t understand why people find frivolous tech arguments fun to run/debate, but if that’s what you choose to do, I probably won’t be inclined to vote for you, especially if your opponents are not as comfortable with the style and you don’t accommodate them (e.g. not slowing down while spreading after being asked to “clear” or “slow” several times). Ultimately, if I cannot comprehend what you are saying, I will not be able to vote for you.

Before my partner and I became more proficient at responding to theory/K arguments, we would respond to these arguments in the lay way that we knew (since we hadn’t perfected all the fancy lingo yet), and we were told that even though the substance of our refutations was solid, and in fact stronger than that of our opponents, our lack of jargon usage is what lost us the round. No debate should ever boil down to just buzzwords. Substance > performance. I really do not believe that spreading a theory shell or K from a pre-prepped master-file (that you yourself may not understand) in order to stump your opponents demonstrates a mastery of argumentation.

I am a Parent Judge and I would like to hear about facts and figures during the debate. I would prefer to hear debate points in a slow and clear way.

- My own opinion on the topic will not affect how I judge.

- I enjoy arguments built on fact and logic.

- I enjoy original ideas and enthusiastic performance.

- Feel free to confront, but with grace and respect. 

- Good luck!

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!

I don't pay attention during cross fire. Anything brought up in cross fire has to be brought up in the next speech for it to be weighed. All impacts need to be clearly stated.

Just speak clearly. Anything over 150 wpm will not be flowed.

I'm a parent judge and this is my first tournament as a judge. However, I did parliamentary debate in college so I'm reasonably familiar with it.

I'll be looking for clearly stated claims, persuasive arguments, and for each claim to be refuted. Don't drop anything! It's great if you can clearly organize your claims, numbering them if possible to make it clear when you're making a new claim. I will be flowing your debate and listening carefully.

I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.

Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:

1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).

2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.

Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.

I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.

I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.

Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).

Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.

Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.

Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.

Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.

Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.

I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.

Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )

If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.

In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).

It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.

I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.

+ speaks for Lebron.

Email chain (yes): talk to me before round.

I debated (2020-2023), judged (many rounds), and currently coach Lincoln-Douglas. I prefer not to disclose personal information online beyond what might be immediately helpful for the competitor, so feel free to talk to me before the round if you have any further questions!

Overview

• Call me “judge” in-round, thanks

• Wear a mask if the tournament says you have to. I will vote where you tell me to, but I will not shake your hand.

• Be ethical with speech times, prep time, and evidence. At the end of each speech, you are granted a “grace period” to finish your sentence, not to make a whole new argument. You are granted 4 minutes of prep (LD). Here is the NSDA Evidence Guide. Don’t steal prep by taking forever to find a card. Cheating is not cute or quirky, and I will not hesitate to punish to the full extent as outlined by CHSSA/NSDA rules.

• Be mindful of potential triggers and sensitive topics and DO NOT be offensive (racist, homophobic, sexist, the list goes on).

Traditional LD

I will not hesitate to drop anyone who chooses to make the round inaccessible (spreading out the opponent) or engage in other debate practices that would not be understandable to a reasonable person. This is non-negotiable.

• Keep your off-time roadmap to less than 15 words. Please. Just tell me where to flow.

• There’s a fine line between being cheeky and being annoying during cross. Feel free to do the former, not the latter, I can tell the difference. If you’re confused, ask.

• An argument comprises a claim, warrant, and impact, not just a claim.

• Write the ballot for me – tell me why you win.

Circuit LD

• Send a speech doc and go slower than you usually do – it’s been a while and listening to spreading has always made me very tired. If I miss something, it’s nice to have the doc to reference. Slow down especially on signposting, taglines, and analytics.

• I would prefer if the round remained related to resolution – things like friv theory and Ks unrelated to the debate are a bit harder for me to vote on, though possible.

• Avoid using heavy progressive debate jargon

Other Events

Treat me like I’m a parent judge. Prioritize clarity over speed, and explain the argument and reasoning to me. Assume I’m not familiar with the topic lit. Please don’t be rude in crossfire.

Have fun and good luck!

First Year Judge ( @ 2023 ).

Engineer by academic and training.

Data Driven. Logic Driven.

Grow and Learn together.

Please be thoughtful and respectful.

I'm a parent judge.

Firstly - please do not spread: debate is for education and logic, speaking fast not only doesn't enhance that, but may detriment what education can be produced for both sides. I would prefer you speak slower as that gives both me and the opponents a deeper understanding of what you are truly saying.

In terms of other delivery, use proper articulation, tone, and I take into consideration a large amount of delivery skills such as nonverbal body language and tone (especially in speaker points).

I feel the need to put the disclaimer that I have trouble buying K's, as I was not extremely well-versed in kritikal debate, especially as it is something arguably more recently surfaced.
With this being said, I understand that kritikal arguments are a mechanism for debaters to spread these advocacies, however, I may not understand this post-fiat advocacy enough to have a crystal clear ballot, which makes voting quite hard.

Kritikal arguments are on one spectrum of technical arguments that I may not know well enough about to buy (as once again, K's were never a thing back then, and have become more usable after the pandemic, etc. so I am still learning), and am not likely to buy it under these given circumstances.
Some other tech args that fall along the same lines of the ["please don't run, I will not understand/buy and it will only frustrate you"] radar are things like Friv T, which is very harmful to real education and ends up becoming annoying. In general anything that seems "quirky" and reflects in opposition to more traditional Parliamentary formats will be looked down upon. So once again, please do not run them as I will be very saddened, and refer to using the fundamental debate structure as the AFF/NEG.

I will protect the debate space first and foremost. Do NOT use personal attacks, homophobia, racism, misgendering, transphobia, etc. as there is 0 tolerance for this especially in the debate space where we are here to learn. I won't regulate how you choose to debate as long as debaters handle themselves accordingly with reason to rules, speech time (including grace period within reason), respect, etc. but if blatant violations occur or are brought up, I will step in.

Please adhere to well-delivered, logically sound arguments, clash, and impacts and evidence that are reasonable, warranted, and supported. Arguments are meant to make sense. Don't say a bunch of evidence with no purpose or logic to analyze and tie it back, after all, although numbers may sound good, if there is no real argument, it's much easier for me to rely on analytics that truly are well-explained and link chains that make sense.

I am tabula rasa, meaning that I will not produce exterior knowledge or factor-in outside opinions when making my ballot. At the end of the day, I will flow what you and the opponents tell me, and how you clash, rather than my own opinions (no matter if I agree or disagree).
I evaluate arguments partially on their presentation and how they are delivered, but also the ways they are explained and logically backed upwith evidence and analysis.

Clash is vital, as that is where we can learn and discuss, so please use your ground and weigh clash and impacts. At the end of the day I shouldn't have to guess or gamble who wins the round, you should be using proper impact calculus and weighing of impacts to tell me why/who wins. With that being said, I expect debaters to warrant their evidence and actually explain it in their constructive, or in rebuttal when refuting. In addition, please signpost clearly, it makes flowing and understanding your points much easier.

In terms of framework, there are tight burdens to ensure AFF has set topical, reasonable, and agreed upon framework. If you fail the burden of framework as the AFF, it will make it very difficult to regain feasible ideas of your advocacy, as your side, as well as the entire round, is lacking any real image, weather it be a lack of definitions, clarity, weighing, plan (and plan specifications such as timeframe), etc. Once again, because I try to be tabula rasa, losing framework basically makes me unable to evaluate the following speeches properly or until framework is set.

In terms of counterplans, I find some CPs to be slightly confusing especially depending on the context of the round (or if the round is loaded with more niche topics). With that being said, you can still run a CP, just at your own risk. My largest requirement for a CP is that it has to be very very well explained, given all the framework and elements that I would expect from the AFF, presented in the first NEG speech, and must be shown to pass the test of perm to be both better and competitive.
I am also aware that PIC's are a form of CP's, however, many debaters fail to distinguish to two well, making them more confusing. At the end of the day, if you can explain them well, I will try my best to evaluate them, however, if I am left confused and to guess the perm, then I will be discouraged from voting for it (given that the AFF has substantial points against it). Once again, I don't want to have to "guess" who wins, so the same applies for any CP advocacy.

Finally, if you have any questions about my paradigm, other things that were not explicitly listed under this paradigm, or just questions in general, feel free to ask before the round (in reasonable time)! I will try my best to answer all questions.
Lastly, debate is a very prestigious art and sport, so despite being caught up with all the chains and dedications of it, don't forget to have fun! Good luck all.

I am a parent judge with some speech and debate judging experience. Please talk slowly and make your logic and argument clear.

3rd year flay parent judge

both sides need to eat more fruit they look malnourished

paradigm lol https://docs.google.com/document/d/13yNM4bIspRBuLD2AH2PAhv5JZzOYJIPEd2rTdz59TwM/edit?usp=sharing

✨✨✨✨

tf why does only the sparkle emoji work