Experience: 4 years of PubFo and Parli at the circuit level

Speaker Points: I'm an old-school debater. I grew up debating at the dinner table so I'm going to be looking keenly for how well you listen to your opponent, actually understand what they say and how they think, and how well you articulate and explain yourself to them. This means you should be on your A-game during cross-examination. I also like to see your speaking style. I did a lot of OO and Impromptu so I'm pretty critical of this as well. I'm going to determine a winner based on what you say, not how you say it. But how you say it will go a long way towards determining how influential what you say is to winning.

Speed- I've been out of circuit debate for a while so proceed at a reasonable speed. No spreading please.

Ks are fine but don't stretch it. Only use it if it's necessary. I'm here to listen to something substantive about a real-world issue. Theory shells are fine but make sure it's well-structured and concise, especially if it's abstract reasoning. Sell all Ks and T-shells directly to me.

Topicality- Only do this if it's necessary. Debate over topicality shouldn't run past the first cross-examination, otherwise the debate becomes pointless. Don't try to win on topicality because I want to be able to weigh contentions on a common framework.

Impact Calculus- This is where you're going to make your money. All contentions should have a well-supported and well-defined impact. All impacts should be related directly to the value criterion, then value, and then the resolution such that the last thing you say should literally end with "...which is why we affirm/negate the resolution...(insert resolution)." Disads and extensions are good. I think it's important to the identity of a debate to exchange perspectives on the same idea. In the end I will be the ultimate judge of which impacts are valid and which impacts weigh more.

Respect- I spent all four years of my high school debate career actively working against the notion that your opponents are your enemies. Yes, you are debating against them but they're across the table from you because they share the same love for debate as you do. Appreciate the fact that they are there and treat them with respect, otherwise, I might just give you a loss. Watch your demeanor, be nice, and mean it.

Flow- I flow debates. If you're talking and I'm not writing it means that you didn't come across clearly in your last point and I'm trying to figure it out or that I'm waiting for you to say something substantive. Sometimes I will look up at you if I think you're making an important point. Don't waste your time and energy worrying over what I'm thinking because it could be the exact opposite. Make sure you address all of your opponent's points on the flow. Internal links are huge. If you don't link your points and support those links with evidence I won't buy it. Signpost everything. If you didn't explain something properly the first time i'll give you one more opportunity to clarify and validate your point. I look at the flow holistically so don't lose it over small things but if they add up it's going to make a difference, especially in a close round.

Judge Paradigm for NAUDL- Sandy Amos

I have moderate experience in debate judging. Most of my Rounds have been novice and JV rounds at BAUDL Tournaments.

I do not like spreading. If I can’t understand what you saying I can’t evaluate your arguments. I like arguments that are focused on the substance of the case. I do not find Topicality or Framework to be particularly effective. There should be considerable clash on the merits of the arguments that are presented. I do appreciate personal connections to the topics being debated. I believe that when an argument is connected to your personal experience it is more effective. Please provide your files before the debate as I like to follow along with the text as I flow.

I consider Performance Debate techniques to be a valid and creative method of debate and I am not particularly interested in argument on the format of debate. I value originality and intellectual discourse as the basis for my ballot decisions.

My name is Val and I would say I have a lot of debate experience. I did policy debate for 1 year in middle school and 4 years in high school. I was a part of the Bay Area Urban Debate League (BAUDL) and went to most national tournaments. I also went to debate camp all four years I was in high school . I was a flex debater so I ran both policy and kritik/performance arguments. I do not have a preference for arguments. I will vote on who did the better debating regardless of what arguments are presented. I try to leave my personal preferences outside of the round.

However, below I've left my preferences/opinions on certain arguments just in case any team is interested in seeing what my thoughts are.

Topicality/Framework:

I ran topicality/framework a lot in high school, it was one of my favorite arguments to run on the negative against K/performance affs. I think that if a team chooses to run this argument or go for it in a debate round it's important to really stress the significance of topicality/framework. If you can convince me that your voters are important in regards to the round and in general debate, I'll vote neg. However, personally I don't believe that T/framework is a voter, it's hard for me to be convinced it is.

K Affs/Performance Affs:

My favorite. I love judging rounds that have K affs or performance affs. The only thing is that you'd have to really break down what solvency looks like in regards to the aff. You'll win me easily on the impacts of the K but you'll have to do the work on proving what solvency looks like for the aff and what spill over looks like.

K's on Neg:

This is also one of my favorite arguments on the neg. I'll usually vote on the K if and only when links are strong and there's a good alternative to the K. As in, you can explain what the world of the alternative looks like and how the permutation fails on the aff's end. I'd also appreciate a good impact calculus as well.

Disads/CP's:

I'm familiar with disads/counterplans but I did not run them as much in high school. Just make sure that you're clear on what the links are and how the counterplan is mutually exclusive in regards to the aff. Not a huge fan of the politics disad, however, if you explain it well and there's clash I could vote for it.

Hello. I'm a former debater for Cal Poly SLO, Sacramento State, and Monterey Trail High. I have competed in college open policy, college BP, and high school parli (but see #2). I am an attorney (but see #6).

1. I have no preference for debate styles, so please debate however you like. Just make clear what my role is as the judge in the round and what voting for you means or signifies.

-

2. Assume I don't know your authors/arguments. I am not a lay judge, but I am also not a judge who cuts cards or researches arguments for the topic. Do not assume that I am familiar with the literature that you are reading or the arguments that you are running. I have a fair understanding of critical theory in general as well as the kritiks common to debate. But in general, you should assume that I am unfamiliar with your argument.

-

3. Impact comparison is very important to me. Provide me with a metric for weighing different impact claims and prove to me that your impact is more weighty and important than your opponent's.

-

4. I probably will not adopt your framework if you used it to avoid a debate. I don't like when framework is used as a way to hide. I am more likely to reward teams who directly clash with their opponent's argument, whatever it may be. If you do choose to go all-in on framework in the 2NR or 2AR, you must justify why you chose to give zero recognition to your opponent's argument, because you are asking me to do the same for you. Focusing primarily on the "rules" of debate is not enough.

-

5. I'm unlikely to vote for theory arguments unless I'm convinced that the abuse or unfairness in the round was strong. If you are going for these arguments in the rebuttals, please slow down and clearly identify what unfairness/abuse occurred in round and explain why that conduct creates bad debate not only in this round but for debate in general. I won't vote for it if I don't understand it.

-

6. I don't expect you to "know" the law any more than your peers. I don't expect you to be as familiar with the law as a law student or lawyer would. In other words, please don't worry about running or having to respond to legal arguments in front of me. I am judging your argumentative abilities, not your knowledge of jurisprudence.

-

7. Try to have fun! Debate is intense, but it can actually be enjoyable. A positive room is the best way to spend time in debate, and I'll do my best to keep ours light-hearted. Mistakes can happen, and that's ok. Try not to get too frustrated; there will always be another speech, another round to try again. Assume that your partner and opponents, like you, are debating in good faith, are probably nervous, are trying their best, and are doing this activity because they want to. I would even suggest cheering on your opponents, even if they've out-debated you, and especially if you've out-debated them--try it, it's fun. Don't be disrespectful, don't be unethical, and do not impugn anyone's dignity or humanity.

-

Thanks, and best of luck.

Name: Paul Gladden Debate Experience: 1 year LD (High School) 3 years Policy Debate (HS) 4 years Parli (Grossmont College/SDSU). Multiple years Judging. General Philosophy: My role as a judge is to evaluate the arguments presented in the round based on the quality of evidence, the clarity of argumentation, and the strategic choices made by the debaters. Speed: I am comfortable with speed, but clarity is key. If I cannot understand your arguments, I cannot flow or evaluate them. Please slow down for taglines, citations, and important arguments. Topicality: Topicality is a voting issue. If the negative team runs a topicality argument and proves that the affirmative is not within the bounds of the resolution, the affirmative needs to either prove they are topical or that their interpretation of the topic is preferable. Disadvantages and Counterplans: I am open to voting on disadvantages and counterplans. Counterplans must be competitive and mutually exclusive. Kritiks: I am open to kritiks, but they must be clearly explained and linked to the affirmative case. The alternative must be clear, and the negative must explain why the kritik is a voting issue. Speaker Points: Speaker points are awarded based on clarity, strategic choices, and engagement with the opponent's arguments. Being respectful to your opponents is critical.

Hello, debaters! I am an 11/12 English teacher at Richmond High School within the Internationals' Academy. I love well-explained evidence and extensive vocabulary!

Pronouns: (she/her)

I did not debate in high school, but I was involved with supporting the debate program at Cal during college!

I am currently the policy debate coach for Richmond High School.

Add me to your email chain please - I want to see your evidence: shelliewharton@berkeley.edu

Don’t be afraid to ask me questions before or after the round! I’m not one of those “read my paradigm and then don’t speak to me” judges, and I am happy to answer any questions you might have. I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. Do your best to stay organized. Your disorganization means I have to fight to stay organized, rather than focusing entirely on your argumentation. I’m very open to nontraditional arguments and K affs!

I'm a pretty flexible judge - just make sure that you stay organized, explain your arguments well, and help me understand why I should vote for you. I flow the whole round, and I want to focus to give you good feedback. I will give you most of the feedback in round, but I’ll still write notes on the rfd if I miss something.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine:

General:

1. Tag-teaming in cross-x is fine. Prompting during a speech is fine. Neither should be excessive. That being said, if two people are talking over each other, I can't flow/hear anything.
2. Be nice to other people in the round. Being condescending, rude, mean, etc. will impact your speaker points.
3. Speed is not as important as clarity: I need to be able to understand you read your arguments in order to vote on them.
4. Finally, have fun!

Experience: I have 4 years of experience in high school policy debate at CK McClatchy (2009-2013), and a semester of policy at Arizona State University (2013). I have coached policy debate at Chandler Preparatory Academy (Spring 2014-Fall 2018) and was the head coach at BASIS Chandler (Spring 2017-Fall 2019), policy coach at McClintock High School (Spring 2022), and policy coach at Skyline High School (Fall 2023-April 2024).

I will to listen to any argument provided that I am given a reason why it should affect my decision. Make sure to tell me how I should evaluate and weigh arguments. The more freedom I am given to think for myself, the more likely I am to make decisions that hurt your position in the round. I am comfortable with speed and focus on resolving substantive issues on the flow in order to make my decision, though I'm fully open to theory arguments.

Please ask me if there is anything specific that you would like to know not included in this paradigm. I try to keep it short because I believe that the point of the debate round is to establish both the facts and the framework for the decision, and writing down my every opinion on debate theory doesn't seem productive for allowing you to debate the way you want.

Email: longdsyee@gmail.com

General thoughts:

As a judge for policy debate, I am not comfortable with debaters spreading. I will warn debaters once about clarity, and speed, after that speaker points will decline and flow accuracy will be in question. I am not well versed in debate lingo, but I can give a common RFD. My paradigm is centered around fairness, critical analysis, and effective communication. I approach each round with an open mind and evaluate the arguments presented based on their merits. Here is a breakdown of my judge's paradigm:

1. Fairness and Impartiality:

- I strive to be an impartial and unbiased judge, evaluating the round solely on the arguments presented by the debaters.

- I expect debaters to adhere to the rules and norms of policy debate, and I will enforce them to ensure fairness for all participants.

- I am open to hearing new and innovative arguments, but they must align with the established rules and standards of the debate.

2. Critical Analysis and Evaluation:

- I carefully evaluate the quality and strength of the arguments presented by each team.

- I prioritize well-reasoned and logical arguments that are supported by credible evidence and analysis.

- I expect debaters to clearly articulate their positions, provide logical reasoning, and respond effectively to their opponent's arguments.

3. Communication and Presentation:

- I value clear and effective communication in debate rounds.

- I expect debaters to present their arguments in a manner that is easy to understand, well-organized, and persuasive.

- I appreciate debaters who actively listen, respond thoughtfully to their opponent's arguments, and engage in respectful cross-examination.

4. Respectful Conduct and Sportsmanship:

- I expect debaters to engage in respectful and civil discourse throughout the round.

- I appreciate debaters who demonstrate good sportsmanship by respecting their opponents and engaging in constructive dialogue.

• I will not tolerate personal attacks, disrespectful behavior, or discrimination in the debate round.

5. Clarity and Organization: I appreciate clear and well-organized arguments, use logical reasoning, and present their arguments in a structured manner.

6. Evidence and Analysis: I value evidence-based as well as current events arguments I appreciate thorough analysis of the evidence presented.

7. Clash and Rebuttal: I want to see debaters engage in meaningful clash and rebuttal. I expect debaters to respond to their opponent's arguments, identify weaknesses in their opponent's case, and provide counterarguments. I see the value in debaters who can effectively refute their opponent's arguments and defend their position.

8. Persuasiveness and Impact: I look for debaters who can persuade me with compelling arguments. I appreciate debaters who can explain the importance and implications of their arguments and show how they relate to the overall debate topic. I want to see debaters who can effectively communicate their ideas and convince me of the merits of their position.