"REFUTE" IS NOT A NOUN. THE NOUN OF THE VERB REFUTE IS REFUTATION. OR JUST SAY RESPONSE WE'RE ALL NORMAL PEOPLE.

I'm Nate and I'm a rising junior at Nueva. I've been doing parli for a while. I can understand any tech stuff you’ll read. I'm also a decent lay speaker and I've done a tournament each of trad LD and world schools.

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

I'm not tabula rasa in that I won't just accept any "conceded argument" as true. I once judged someone who told me that 150,000 people die every year from nuclear wars. Like no.

You might have been taught to read something like "you should evaluate this round under net benefits (or utilitarianism), or whichever side provides the most amount of good to the most amount of people". You might also choose to say "you should evaluate this round under the framework of minimizing structural violence" or "you should evaluate this round under the framework of justice *jazz hands*". This take is probably where I vary most from almost every flow judge you'll ever have: when we pretend to make policy decisions in debate, we always always always will evaluate those decisions under a "consequentialist" framework like net benefits versus a "deontological" one like personal autonomy or something. Personal autonomy matters to utilitarianism! Minimizing structural violence matters to utilitarianism! Imho, these are all ways to compare impacts, not frameworks in and of themselves, and I think they should be read like that. In case you can't tell, I think framework debates are a waste of time.

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

Hi! I'm Olivia (she/her/hers). I'm a high school senior & competed in varsity public forum for four years.

To win my ballet

1. Give overviews and weigh (tell me which arguments are the most important, and why)
2. Terminalize your arguments

Other notes

1. Add me to the email chain: olichia@nuevaschool.org
2. Zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Be kind! :)
3. Tech > truth. I will not intervene, so use consistent logic and complete your arguments
4. I can keep up with speed as long as you are clear
5. If the tournament doesn't specify, I'll give 10 seconds of grace after your speech time ends

Yay have fun

Hi, I'm Jackson. I do PF on the circuit for Nueva. I have basically never judged.

Round preferences

By desirability: Policy = K > Theory > KvK > K v Theory

By my competence: Policy > K = Theory > K v Theory > KvK

Basics

Set up an email chain. Speed is good but clarity matters. I won't vote on death good, self-harm good, or bigoted arguments. Let me know if you feel unsafe.

Tech>truth. Nothing is sticky. My one goal in life is to avoid intervening.

You need to do three things: weigh, extend, and warrant. Weigh early and keep it consistent; a brand new weighing mechanism in 2nd final is a new argument. Weigh turns if you plan on them mattering. Don't disguise new defense as weighing (special shout-out here to intervening actors, my least favorite weighing mech)

Do what you can to create and develop the clash in the round. Extending contradictory narratives past each other with no comparison of the two is very hard to evaluate and counter-educational.

K preferences

I'll vote on anything. I have a mild preference topical Ks. I've read cap, semiocap, deleuze+guatarri, bataille, and foucault on the circuit---but I'm absolutely not an expert in critical literature.

I strongly dislike uplayering the K with random theory violations (especially those that could just as easily be a disad to the K). There are many better places to push the K on the K sheet. I will reward a strong execution of actual responses. It is also very valuable to adapt responses to what they are saying: "perm do both" means very little without a warrant specific as to what "doing both" entails.

I have no opinions whatsoever on K Affs vis-a-vis T-Framework. I prefer K Affs that interact with the topic (even when they don't affirm it) and understand their literature base.

On language Ks: A K saying "don't use X discriminatory word" is suboptimal. The root cause of discriminatory language is discriminatory assumptions: try to kritik those assumptions at the root rather than the outcome.

Theory preferences

I think theory is a valuable way to generate norms and thus will vote on it, but most theory rounds are usually uninteresting to judge. I think disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but tabula rasa still applies in theory rounds.

IVIs aren't good. Make it theory or make it a kritik.

I am a new parent judge. If you can speak slowly I will greatly appreciate it. thanks

I am a parent judge.

TLDR: Collegiate debater (Notre Dame), tech>truth, comfortable with speed/spread, enjoys creative arguments, loves a "good" T debate, low threshold for K, tabula rasa.

NPDA Paradigm (scroll to the bottom for BP and IPDA)

Case:

When weighing I award each argument to one team or another (or sometimes wash them), see the maximum impact that was explained in the debate, and weigh those impacts. Yup pretty much the same as any flow judge. However, I hate to have to do this on my own which is why I love good third speeches so much - PLEASE weigh your impacts and terminalize them! If you don't weigh it, I can't evaluate it - impacts are a pre-requisite to the ballot.

I will evaluate any/all impacts & frameworks, and reward creative frameworks and impact chains.

Defaults:

I'm against holding defaults in general simply because I believe that's the debaters' burden to set in every debate. This means I try to have no T, K, Weighing, FW, or any other defaults. However, if none of the 3rd speakers weigh, I'll just take the easiest path to the ballot, so please do weigh! You should decide the result of the debate – don't leave it to me.

My one true default is tech>truth, which is required for me to approach the debate tabula rasa.

Speed:

I can flow most speeds. In the event that you're speaking too fast/unclear, I will slow/clear you once, then stop flowing. Please don't spread out opponents who can't handle speed or who are newer to debate, but against 2 experienced & willing teams, speed in my opinion is a great tool.

Theory:

- I love a good theory debate; used to be somewhat of a T debater

- the key word is "good".

- Don't use theory against less-experienced teams for the sole purpose of getting a win. Theory against 2 experienced teams simply to win is great, but I draw the line when you're using it against a less-experienced team.

- I love all forms of theory including "friv T"

- I don't default to anything, it is up to you in your VI's to explain how I should vote on it.

- I have a low threshold for we-meet scenarios.

- Be sure to pass a complete text of your interpretation or counter-interpretation at the end of your speech to the judge(s) and opponents.

Kritik:

- familiar with structure and most common K's

- pretty low threshold, although the links obviously need to be germane to the round

- K perms are a valid strategy; I will evaluate them as flowed

- extremely sympathetic to theory args if you read a K on an inexperienced team

Counterplans:

I love counterplans that are creative and unique. It creates a very interesting debate, but it really should be competitive and mutually exclusive. Even more than a creative counterplan, I love creative permutations. Yeah, basically anything you run I will accept unless the other side refutes it, in which case the debate gets a lot more exciting. I can evaluate the perm as a theory shell if you call it a test of competition

Structure:

I'm fine with whatever structure you want for case (TULI, ARESI, Claim Warrant Impact, ABC, whatever is the easiest for you), but please signpost. Presumption is an extremely under-used Neg strategy, if you can use presumption successfully that gives you a very clean path to the ballot.

NIBs, Truth Testing, Spikes etc.:

I will evaluate these arguments but have a high threshold; if you want to run them feel free but I expect clear explanations & warranting as to how they're germane to the round. I run NIBs in collegiate debate, and am familiar with truth testing and most forms of spikes; however if you want to run other trix (Permissibility, Skepticism etc.) please explain them well.

Other stuff:

- I start at 27 speaker points and go higher or lower based on how persuasive your speech was, especially speaking style. Speaks aren't really based on what you say but rather how you say it. If you can sing the ABC's, you get high speaks but if you say a really important argument in a robot voice you get low speaks. Debate is about the spoken word.

- I will always try to disclose if the tournament allows it; if not, I will give as much feedback as possible including sharing my flow if requested.

- I don't protect the flow because that opens the debate up to too much judge intervention, so PLEASE P.O.O. when your opponents say something new in the final 2 speeches. If you P.O.O. 3 times and it's clear everything they say is new, then I will start to protect the flow but you need to initiate that.

- If the tournament allows, I will share my flow with you after I submit the ballot.

- If there is anything whatsoever that I can do to make the debate more accessible to you then PLEASE let me know either verbally, over email, tabroom, or slack.

- Content warnings are a must if you read graphic arguments/impacts, if I'm flustered then I can't flow your arguments to the best of my ability.

- If you effectively use weighing arguments (ex. probability over magnitude) from the first speech, it makes giving you the ballot extremely easy. I reward creative frameworks and weighing arguments.

Note: This paradigm is specific for NPDA. For IPDA and BP, I am comfortable with speed/spread albeit to a lesser extent, I will evaluate any arguments but especially reward creative case arguments, and will flow any structure of arguments. I would refrain from explicitly running T/K in IPDA or BP; rather, phrase them as case or "framework-level" or "modeling" arguments and I will evaluate them accordingly. IPDA & BP do not necessitate abandoning creativity & pursuits of social equity, but rather reframing those arguments in a more accessible manner.

Thank you for reading and if you have any questions whatsoever please email me at araghura@nd.edu. Good luck!!!

About Me: I'm a parent judge in my first year of judging, and I'm thrilled to be here to assess your debates.

Here are the specific aspects I prioritize:

1. Logic: While evidence holds importance, I give higher weight to the clarity and strength of your logical reasoning.

2. Clarity: The ease with which I can follow your thought process and the effectiveness of your speech are important to me.

3. Honesty: I greatly value fair play, so calling out any fallacies or inaccurate/unfair statements is a plus.

I am a new parent judge.

Hey y'all I'm Deniz (he/him), I debate for Nueva PF under GS.

TLDR; Tech > Truth. Speed less than 275wpm is fine (anything higher and I absolutely need a speech doc) , but make sure you're clear otherwise I can't flow your stuff. I love theory- Paraphrasing is bad, Disclosure is good. K's must be explained thoroughly unless they are very simple, but I recommend not reading them unless you really want to.

Parli stuff is below PF

General Stuff PF:

tech > truth

I flow.

Weigh in summary AT THE LEAST

Extend your cases. I need to hear a UQ, L, IL's, and an !.

No new args after 1st summary.

Make CX funny/interesting.

I will time speeches and stop when you go 5 seconds over, use the grace period to finish your speech.

If you're gonna spread give me a speech doc, I'm VERY comfortable with 250wpm.

Weighing:

In my mind, weighing is the most important part of a debate so you better do it.

If both teams are winning arguments (and they will be), weighing is where I vote.

Contest your opponents weighing with yours. Tell me why their weighing sucks.

Do meta-weighing if appropriate.

Frameworks:

I am well-versed in SV and Extinction (but any FW is fine). Read them if you want, I think they make debate very interesting.

If no frameworks are read I default to util.

Theory/Ks:

I really enjoy theory, I think it makes debate fun, please run them. If you want to run frivolous theory by all means run it.

Default: Competing Interps, No RVI, DTA.

I'm not super well versed in K's (I understand the structure and how it works but don't have much experience debating them), but by no means should you not run them! But just know case and theory are probably better.

Speaks:

If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. you will get dropped with low speaks.

If you're rude to your opponents you will also get low speaks.

Make me laugh +0.5 speak

Read friv theory +0.5 speak (JV don't do this)

Speaks start at around 28.3 most people will get somewhere around 28.5-29. I think speaking style is important in speaks, content and strategy are generally more of a ballot thing, but ( they will change your speaks just not that much). Be fluent, speak with emphasis (don't be a robot), be kind.

JV and Varsity speaks will be given based on skill level in your division.

Parli:

I have not competed on the Parli circuit, I am familiar with the format and have done a few rounds. I will do my best to keep any bias from PF out of my ballot.

Case/Substance:

Extending: I want to see a clear UQ, L, IL, and ! for your case. The clearer the better, blippy arguments are like gambling and will probably lose to a well-extended argument.

Weighing: This should be consistent across the whole round, same stuff in MG/MO to PMR/LOR. Meta-weighing is very good and will help you win rounds! Timeframe and irreversibility (and stuff like them) are ILs into other weighing mechanisms such as scope and magnitude. Respond to your opponents weighing, don't leave it up to me.

Framework: I love framework and I think it makes rounds far more engaging, I default to a utilitarian FW, FWs are competitive and you should debate your FW against your opponents.

General/Warranting:

Because Parli has no evidence (or at least not much at all), Warrants are very very important. Everything should be warranted sufficiently, no warrants will lose to warrants.

Speed is around 250 for a very comfortable pace, you can go faster if you want. I will yell clear if you go to fast a couple of times, I want your arguments to be heard.Evidencewon't necessarily beat an amazing argument from your opponents, but it will definitely help boost your warrants, read it if you want.

I am tech>truth.

Theory/Ks

I adore theory and think it's very interesting! I'm well versed in PF theory, but don't know much about parli. If you read theory please make sure to make sure it's well-explained (especially for things like condo).

I'm not very familiar with topicality, you can try and read it but I recommend not to.

Theory should be a shell, responses to theory should have counter-interps. I default to drop the argument and competing interps, and no RVI.

Don't read tricks in JV.

Don't read a K please, I'm okay with them in PF but I don't feel confident that I'll make the right decision in Parli.

POIs/POOs:

POIs should be non-verbal, and they won't impact my decision. POIs should not be raised during protected time.

I will announce my ruling on POOs. I protect the flow.

As I come from PF, I'm not very familiar with Points, so less is probably better (by no means should you not do them).

Defer to PF paradigm for speaks.

Have fun debating and please ask me questions before a round :)

Senior @ Nueva.

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

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

hi! i'm isabella (she/her), and i'm a varsity parli debater at nueva

tldr it's not that deep but if u want it to be that deep then read below

DON'TS:

1. debate should be a safe space!!! zero tolerance for anything racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. this will have you immediately dropped, speaks tanked, and probably berated in my rfd
2. read graphic/triggering content without a content warning
3. that's everything you explicitly can't do. prefs are at the end of the day just prefs!! have fun go crazy

DO:

1. LORs and PMRs: walk me through how i should be voting in the round ("first, you should be looking toward x because xyz layering claim, but even if you don't buy that, you should be voting for us on y because..."). this limits intervention, keeps me from doing extra work (WHERE IS THE MEDITATE EMOJI), and is overall just a really strong argumentative strategy
2. give off-time road maps
3. signpost! i really do want to flow and fairly evaluate your argument, but i can't do that if i don't know where you are on the flow.
4. slow/clear as requested

CASE:

i am a case <3er. usually. allegedly tech > truth... when presented with clash on uniqueness/link debates, i'll probably default to the team with warrants. as such, warrant your internal link scenarios!! terminalize and weigh impacts because otherwise I don't know what to do with it and will sit sadly.

i'm probably even more tech > truth for econ stuff because what is the truth for econ??? i have no clue so please explain to me clearly and with analysis

CP:

articulate your CP's mutual exclusivity and solvency. for the aff, read the perm as a test of competition and explain why it is not mutually exclusive. i will vote on a well-articulated perm against a non-mutually exclusive cp with GLEE. pics or borderline abusive CPs are fine but be ready for theory.

THEORY:

i have a pretty low theory threshold. friv is fine, just give me actual standards and voters (i've read/written some dumb things myself, ex: "1ac must verbally remind everyone to check their posture"). bidirectional shells are funny. if both sides are reading theory, giving me some meta-weighing or layering so i know which sheet to put first.

absent any other claims, I'll default to apriori, competing interps (what is reasonability?? idk unless u give me a brightline. this is silly goofy debate i feel like "reasonable" goes out the window), drop the argument if the violation is on an argument, drop the debater if the violation was a lack of action/just not tied to a specific argument, and no rvis.

i also default to T>K.

K:

assume i have not read your lit! assume i don't know what's going on! EXTEND FW TRICKS/ONE-SHOT KILLS THROUGH EVERY SPEECH! it makes it easier for me to evaluate and for your opponents to have actual clash! give specific links!

aff ks are fine (tell me why u reject the res), neg ks are fine (aff: perm the alt or i cry), fwt is fine.

not confident in my kvk evaluating skills.......so err on the side of more reasons to prefer and weighing and layering.

i'm prob most empathetic toward fem/gender lit and accessibility, but do whatever.

will elaborate more on this eventually...maybe......

POI/POO:

try to take 2 pois. pois should be genuine questions, NOT assertions of your own opinions. i cannot express how much i hate those kinds of pois. i don't flow responses to pois. please don't bait the mo into new arguments with a poi and then bring it up in the pmr, i will protect it on the flow.

i try my best to protect the flow but do call poos on crucial new arguments just in case. poos are NOT crossex. don't waste time

also I'll probably give you higher speaks if you call a poo as "poo" instead of "p.o.o." because i am 12.

SPEAKING:

i used to give extra speaks based on fun little things u did in round but that got too tiring to track. so instead i'm just gonna give winning teams a 29 and losing teams a 28 because yay unless u are bad in which nayyyyyy and u will receive lower :)

MISC:

• bonus points if you're demeaning in a creative way
• "this is abusive" is not an argument
• small affs are cool
• bonus points for a cool fit
• bonus points if u sneak in funny lyrics

Hi! I'm Anping (he/him), a senior at the Nueva School. I have been debating (Parli) for about one year.

IMPACTS ????

theory yum

ks ?

speaks are not real 29 ish by default but

+0.5 if you make me laugh

+0.3 for walking into the room with gusto

+0.1 for staying hydrated

Finally, we're all here to learn and have fun, so if you do anything to prevent that then expect to be punished in speaks/ballot if not both