Two things: (1) Do NOT speak too quickly and (2) signpost.

Hello,

I am a new parent judge with a little judging experience, so I am here to learn. However, my child does parliamentary debate so I am familiar with the structure. I am more of a truth judge than a tech judge, and no spreading would be great. Little to no jargon would be helpful. Any discriminatory language including racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will warrant a ballot for the other team. Keep language respectful and non-profane.

I judged only one time before at GGSA Parli 3 Jan 2022.

Parli Debater

If you do nothing else then please stay organized/signpost, evaluate impacts, and give me voters. Always prioritize logical warranting and clash. I understand jargon and tech.

Overview - I don't believe you should have to change your style to adjust to to the judge. With that said, I am a flow judge and am 100% willing to vote for any warranted framework, weighing, contention etc but I am also just as willing to vote on a good theory or K read in response. Otherwise I will vote on what I am told to vote on and try to avoid extending things for you and intervening in my decision.

Tech vs. Truth - I am generally tech over truth though my threshold for response is inversely proportional to how blatantly friv or ridiculous the claim is. I try to keep my own biases away from any decision and will absolutely never vote for something not mentioned in round.

Warranting - Parli debate is not policy and your opponents cannot call for cards. If both teams read me two conflicting numbers then I will vote for the team who gives warranting/reasoning as to why I should prefer theirs. If neither side does this, it's a wash.

Framework/Theory - I judge theory>framework>case. I encourage frameworks which ask me to evaluate impacts in a unique way. Theory is underutilized and I will vote for it though friv T could very easily be a rvi for me if it is truly ridiculous. If your opponents try to frame you out of the round or try to avoid clash then please run T and tell me their strategy is abusive and I will gladly vote for you.

Impacts - The last speech is probably the most important. I will not shadow extend for you and I will evaluate the impacts you choose to highlight in the last speech the most. I will always weigh impacts in accordance to the weighing mech provided. If your weighing mech is net benefits then a collapse to preserving individual rights won't be valued highly unless you tell me why preserving rights is a utlitarian good. However, if you read that the burden is to vote for the team which best upholds the Constitution then I will vote for preserving speech rights over nuclear war unless its linked. PLEASE ALWAYS TIE IMPACTS TO WEIGHING MECH and please please please WEIGH IMPACTS.

Kritiks - DO NOT RUN BAUDRILLARD, FOUCAULT, ETC IF YOU HAVE NOT ACTUALLY READ THEM. I will vote for K though if it is clear you are reading a K you didn't write/don't understand then my threshold for response is near the ground. If your opponents ask you to explain any concept in your K and its importance in layman's terms and you can't then I'll drop the K. I am willing to buy arguments that tell me a K is inaccessible, hurts the debate space, unfairly leverages identity, etc.

Explain to me why my vote is necessary for the debate past an endorsement. Your K should link strongly to the case or preferably something the aff read specifically. Prioritize solvency and handhold me through why your alt is good and why the perm is impossible. If you run a performance K then you are inviting my subjectivity and I will vote likewise.

Despite how this all sounds, I will happily vote for a K you understand well and applied to the case well.

Counterplans - I love counterplans. Please win the CP is better than the perm or perm is impossible. Theory on CPs is always fun and I will vote for it if done well.

Speed/Presentation - I do not care at all how you read your case. Read however you are comfortable. I am fine with any speed but will tell you to slow or clear if necessary. Higher speaker points to teams who are well organized and signpost.

Background: MBA | Technology Industry Veteran | Parent | Novice Debate Judge

Focus Areas:

• Definition: Clear, non-ambiguous definition of all components of the motion
• Substance: Strong analysis, clear evidence with real-world examples
• Style: Clear and objective communication, strong and continuous delivery of speech, respectful debate etiquette
• Strategy: Effective use of debate theory, ability to anticipate, adhere to topic, respond to opponent's arguments

I did c-x in high school and parli in college and have gotten back into the swing of judging quite recently. I flow and can keep up. A few things I would note about my own thinking as I process my judging decisions:

To win: crystallize for me what matters, why it matters and why you win that issue. As we get to the end of the debate, save time by compressing the flow to this vs. going over what by that point is an increasingly overlapping set of gov and opp contentions and refutations. Synthesis also saves time and lets you really own the arguments that matter. You won't lose if there is a minor point that falls through the flow - I will see it in my flow, but unless the other team makes a clear case that dropped issue is important, it won't be decisive.

Specific likes:

1. I like creativity and wit. Pulling off a clever argument gets more points than an obvious argument.
2. I really like when you can show how specific examples your opponent uses/logic they employ actually work against them. I notice a lot of examples are not thought through by a team and can get used against them - I appreciate when their opponents notice!

Specific dislikes:

1. My point above notwithstanding, especially early on, you should respond to everything in the flow, even if briefly, especially if you have time. Ending a speech early and simply not addressing points on the flow feels like time not well spent
2. Pay attention to the definition - if you disagree/need to contend with how government has defined things, lay it out early. Government, if something about your definition makes some of the opposition's points irrelevant, say so.
3. If you want an off-time roadmap, it should be something important to share/different - no need if all you are doing is reviewing your opponent's points and reinforcing your own
4. Please don't just reassert an argument you have made previously. If your opponent has offered a refutation, say something new - don't just make the same assertion again. If they have not refuted it, let me know it is unrefuted and why it is important/why I should care

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

CURRENT:
Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

FORMER:
Coach: St. Luke's, Spence, Sidwell Friends
Competitor: LD, APDA

In the last 5 years, I've judged 249 rounds. I've voted AFF 115 (46%) vs NEG 134 (54%). I've been on 111 panels and squirreled 11 times (9%).

____

SUMMARY
Experienced, ‘truthful tech’ flow judge from a traditional debate background. I’m receptive to many arguments, styles, etc., but I prefer strategic case debate or substantive critical debate. Any clash-heavy strategy focused on well-warranted, comparative, topical argumentation should work well for you. I'm not a great judge for contemporary progressive debate (e.g. AFF Ks, performance, tricks, frivolous theory). I'm fine with moderate speed if you slow down on taglines, enunciate, inflect, etc., but I won't flow off the speech doc. Above all, please be kind and respectful to others. And have fun!

____

VOTING
I usually vote wherever the most thorough warranting and responsive weighing was done. If there's no meta-weighing by either team, I tend to prioritize probability/timeframe over scope/magnitude. I tend to value analysis (quality, depth) over assertion (quantity, breadth) on the flow. I'm unlikely to vote for something blippy and under-developed, even if it was conceded. I tend to vote against strategies I consider clash-evasive (e.g. frivolous theory, tricks, conditional CPs, unlinked Ks). Keep in mind that my own rhetorical responsibility is to cogently justify to the losing team why they lost, so being clear is to your advantage.

____

CASE/POLICY
I think debaters chronically misallocate time to stating the obvious about impacts (e.g. "extinction irreversible"), instead of comparing not-obvious details about warrants/evidence. Impact terminalization is fine, but I'm reluctant to vote for extreme impacts with brittle links – I'd prefer to hear probability analysis rather than nuclear war/extinction reductionism. AFF needs to show how their advocacy/plan creates solvency. I like framework-heavy case strategies that challenge net benefits/utilitarian policymaking, especially strategies focused on actor analysis and ethical obligations.

KRITIK
I like K debate, but I also find a lot of it to be obtuse. The link is the most important part of the kritik, because it tells me what you're critiquing/what your opponent did wrong. Links of omission are not links, and reject the AFF/resolution is not an alternative. I'm not comfortable with Ks that ask me to make judgments about a student's immutable identity.My favorite K debates are topically-relevant examinations of academic assumptions, especially in discourse/rhetoric.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
I'm receptive to theory/topicality when it's needed to check in-round abuse, but unreceptive to it for its own sake. An abundance of technical skill shouldn't excuse someone from playing fairly. I'm willing to intervene against debaters who think that baffling their opponent with frivolous theory entitles them to my ballot, and I'm also happy to intervene in favor of a debater who doesn't know the minutiae of theory shells, but is contesting something which is excluding them from the round.

Hello,

I am parent judge with a small amount of experience in debate.

I prefer well constructed arguments with plenty of signposting, but I understand the need to talk fast if you have time constraints. In other words, just be legible.

Additionally, I usually judge case debate, so If you try running a Theory or K, I will try my best to judge fairly (but no promises).

If you have any questions or statements, please try to make them known before the entire round starts.

Best of luck to all debaters!

I am “old school” when it comes to parliamentary debate. I like to see very well-organized speeches, with numbered arguments, solid logic and a sprinkling of good evidence. A rapid fire delivery does not impress me; in fact, I prefer a slower delivery style where the speaker exhibits passion for their side of the topic. As the debate progresses, I do not want to see the same arguments repeated; instead, I want direct clash with the arguments and reasoning presented by previous speakers. I do not appreciate heated or sarcastic responses or rudeness — if a team needs to do this, they don’t deserve to win. When a speaker’s time is up, I expect that they will quickly finish up — I stop listening to arguments 15 seconds into overtime.

I'm a lay judge, requesting respectful debate and valuing quality over quantity. Appreciate a slower pace, please.

I am a parent judge and this is my 2nd time judging parlimentary debate. I appreciate sign posting. Please try not to spread. I am fine with tag teaming as long as it causes minimal disruption. Please be respectful during the other team’s speeches. Thanks!

I am a new parent judge and I am here to learn. First, please don't use theory, kritiks, or any other technical argument. Second, speak clearly with thought out link chains as well as signposting so I can follow along quickly. I favor arguments that have strong impacts, so please make your argument as clearly as possible with little to no jargon. Lastly, remember to be respectful to everyone in the room. Thank you.

Please be respectful to your opponents. If you are spreading keep In mind I might miss a few points. Make sure you list definitions and set the value criterion if you are Gov. Have fun :)

I'm honored to be a judge and so impressed with the quality of teams that I have the pleasure to judge:

- I find roadmaps helpful, either off-time or on-time is fine

- Please speak at a pace that is understandable. If you are speaking too fast, I won't be able to hear your key points

- Please be respectful to me, your teammate, and your opponents

Good luck and make your school proud!

I'm a 4th-year varsity debater, so I have a good understanding of debate jargon.

Be as organized and clear as possible. I won't stop you from spreading, but if I don't catch something, I won't vote on it. I protect the flow, but call POOs if you see them regardless. Please please please signpost!!! I can't vote on an argument if I don't know what you're talking about or where on the flow you are. This means restating your opponent's argument before responding to it.

I am truth>tech -- please call your opponent out if they present false evidence.

I will vote on a really beautifully explained impact over a bunch of statistics with no explanation on how they affect the round. I won't make assumptions for you -- if you don't tell me why climate change is bad, I can't vote on it.

I like philosophy, and I love when arguments are connected back to the weighing mechanism. If you feel confident enough to present an uncommon weighing mechanism, do it, but make sure you explain it well and connect your arguments back to it. I find that impacts painted with smaller strokes can be just as effective as broader impacts. Focus in on how something would affect individuals; tell me a story.

I won't stop you if you run theory or a K, but I'm really not a big fan. If you stray from the basic structure of a debate round, you have to make sure you're being really clear to be fair to both me and your opponent.

Being rude to your opponents won't earn you any points. If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I'll drop you immediately. Don't do it.

Judging:

I’m a flow type of judge. And judge based on the following.

1. The topic/Message being made clear

2. Evidence is provided if asked for or needed

3. Mannerisms, no hostility or rudeness during the debate

4. I don’t usually flow during cross but if there’s a question or something about the logic that really stands out to me ill let it be known

5. Points being correctly attacked and built up

6. But I’ll also give feed back on what could’ve been done better or pointers on how to make a certain point or topic stronger, suggestions

Speech:

I judge based off of:

1. Topic/Message made clear

2. Manners/Hand gestures/Facial expressions are important, it helps convey the story

3. Volume and eye contact help keep a piece together, especially in intense moments

4. Ones acting in general, if one is trying to act something out and it’s not clear just exactly what they’re supposed to be doing it can throw off the entire scene

5. Passion, a piece can seem robotic or made to seem completely bland without some type of enthusiasm behind it.

About me:

Please call me Joi! I’ve been doing speech and debate from 6th grade up until the day I graduated high school. The events I’ve done are DUO, DI, HI, OPP, Impromptu, Public Forum, Parliamentary and a plethora of others. Speech and debate I guess you can say was my life and I’ll love it until the day I die. Whether it be competing or judging I’ll stop at nothing to help people get better and lift up those who need it even if they’re against me. It’s not something I take lightly but even throughout the seriousness I believe speech and debate is a place for not only competition, but to have fun as well as meet long term family members, not just friends.

Please add me to the email chain and send your cases as well so I can follow along! My email is rocklynry@gmail.com

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to zmoss@bishopodowd.org

Short Paradigm:

tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice

It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method and offense against their weighing method.

I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.

Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."

Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.

I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.

Long Paradigm:

I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.

Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.

Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.

Topicality

To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.

Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).

Hi, my name is Ian Nakabayashi I go by he/him pronouns i am currently a high school debater and the debate captain of my school, I've been doing debate for about 3 years so I am semi-experienced. I am mostly a parliamentary debater although I have also debated some public forum but given that most of my experience is in parliamentary debate my paradigm will be slightly more geared toward that style of debate.

TL;DR:

don't speak fast unless everyone in the round is experienced, tell your opponents to slow down if you need to, don't use kritiks or theory shells unless you need to, I prefer logic to tech, please use off time road maps and signposting, impact weighing should have a lot of importance placed on it, POIs are amazing and use them when you can. have fun it doesn't matter if you win it only matters if you learn and get better at this great sport.

Speed

Spreading or talking really fast during a debate is generally something that I would avoid, I think that if you are a very experienced debater spreading is what you should be doing, but that would require not only both participants on your team to be good, it would require both participants on the other team to be very experienced.

Basically stating if we are debating at a good JV level or VAR, spreading is something that I would encourage but otherwise if everyone is not on the same level I would say speaking fast is a detriment. This is a debate, we want the judge to be able to understand you and we want your opponents to be able to understand you. This is the basis for a good debate and a good exchange of ideas, we want an equitable setting for everyone and that requires not speaking faster than your opponents can understand. (If we are debating PuFo or a debate-style when you have prepped way beforehand you should be encouraged to speak fast enough to get through your prepped speech but don't speak faster than you need to because again we want to be equitable)

if your opponents are speaking too fast I would generally encourage you to ask them to slow down, of course, depends on the tournament, some tourneys allow you to ask POCs or points of Clarification, if this is one of those tourneys you can use them to make sure everyone understands what is going on. Additionally, if you think that your debate side and your arguments are particularly complicated you may want to extend an olive branch and ask your opponents or judge if they have POCs (if you have time of course). "Slow" is always something that you can say during a round, opponents don't have to listen but if you think it is necessary for you and your teammate you should say "slow" to opponents during rounds.

Theory

Kritiks are an incredibly useful tool for inequality in a debate however I don't think they're applied particularly well by most teams and they do not easily convince me, so if you need to use kritiks you can but I would prefer you to not. they are an incredibly situational tool and often they make worse debate experiences for both teams, the entire point of competing is learning so if you don't need to use a kritik you shouldn't.

Theory shells are another type of tool that you have at your disposal I'm generally in favor of them as long as it is to protect your team or to not disenfranchise the other team unjustly. In general, I prefer logic and reason to tech based arguments but again feel free to use them when you need to.

Structure

I'm a big fan of signposting and off-time road maps so please do so when you can. Off-time roadmaps are a good way to introduce yourself as well as what you are going to be doing during your speech so it's a great tool to make sure that everyone involved will be able to follow your arguments. The same is true of signposting, if you make sure to tagline your individual ideas or even just number your arguments it makes it easier for people to interact with your ideas so you can follow up on them.

Make sure to follow through with your ideas and make sure that all of your arguments have a complete structure, that's probably the biggest issue that I see with novice-level debating make sure that your ideas have complete structure and logically flow

Pay special attention to your impact weighing, at the end of the day debaters tell the judge what they should believe and the biggest part of that is impact weighing, tell the judge exactly what will happen because of your point and why they should care about it.

POIs POOs and In-Round Verbal Remarks

POIs are probably the biggest missed opportunity of any novice level debaters, don't be afraid to POI your opponent it is good practice for everyone involved so if a question pops up in your head and you can use it use it. However, try to be courteous with your POIs, the goal is to get information and disrupt your opponent, so you don't need to be disrespectful.

Winning should not be your end goal it should instead be getting better at an incredibly useful skill that will be able to help you for the rest of your life. the goal is a fun experience of sharing ideas and I hope that everyone can help foster that.

If you have any questions that aren't answered in this paradigm please feel free to ask me.

Good luck and make your school proud!

Hello debaters!
I am a judge in the parliamentary debate category and you can call me Judge Reena. I value three key tenets: structure, substance, and style.

Structure:
I expect debates to be well-organized. Clearly state your name, topic, position and only then proceed with what your contentions are with logical progression of arguments. This is because judges do not know what the topic is ahead of time. A coherent structure helps the judge understand and evaluate the strength and relevance of your points.

Substance:
Data driven arguments that are clearly articulated will get you far. Counterarguments and rebuttals must be substantive, addressing the core of opposing arguments rather than peripheral issues.

Style:
While style should never overshadow substance, persuasiveness, clarity of expression, and the ability to engage the audience are valued. It's perfectly ok to clarify, challenge, and highlight the strengths of your position. But being respectful is table stakes. Speed should not compromise clarity. If someone doesn't understand you, how can they vote for your position?

My philosophy on feedback:
I love debate and I'm excited that you are all participating. Whether you win or don't, I believe in giving constructive feedback to both sides, aiming to provide insights that will help in your growth as a speaker.

I am a parent or lay judge with a few years of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, oratory skills, and respect for your team mate and opponents. POI's are OK, abusive heckling - not ok. I look forward to an educational experience.

Hi, I am new to judging. I want to hear logical arguments with strong warrants, not claims backed by nothing. Needless to say, please do not run any theory arguments and if the other team is clearly abusive, I will vote accordingly. Be kind and respectful and have fun.

State-ranked High School debater. Run whatever you like. I judge based as close to the flow as I can, if an argument is not responded to and is flowed through by an opponent, I will take it as true. Will decide at the end of the round by assesing the landed impacts on both sides and then weighing them against eachother in reference to the established paradigm value. Please make sure to weigh impacts at the end of your speech and tell me why I should prefer your winning arguments over your opponents.

Of course, I will judge as tabula rasa as I possibly can but, of course, this is also not completely possible; I will always have some biases. For that reason, I think it is more fair if I state my political leanings: I am a registered independant and have been a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist organization in the US, for going on 4 years. Again, I will never ever do something like drop arguments counter to my views but, being transparent, I also recognize that I have some bais towards a certain view point and thus I think it is better and more fair that I simply state them out right from the beginning rather than keep them secret. So there they are. Should all judges have to do this? Perhaps... I would like to see a round on that one day.

I always write long RFDs where I go through each argument and explain how I assessed them. For this reason it usually takes me awhile to write each round up, do not fret if you don't see the RFD as soon as the tournament ends, check back later. It is also for this reason that I do not often give oral RFDs. I love to keep talking about rounds after they end and hear your critiques on my judging, if you have any. Thus I always leave my email: dylanskolnick@gmail.com.

Hello

Debated Parli beginning sophomore year in high school. Coach for Benicia High School

The short version is have fun and I'll do my best to come up with a fair decision and some good pointers.

The long (and probably unnecessary) version:

I know most rules/jargon pretty well but you should explain concepts to me just in case (also to make sure you know what you're talking about).

I have a wide knowledge base and I will use it to decide arguments where people are debating different sets of facts. However I will go against my own views/knowledge if the point is argued superior to the other side.

Feel free to run Kritiques and Theory. However, you will need to meet a high bar of evidence and warranted reasoning in order for me to buy an alternative role of the ballot and/or to vote down the debater. If there’s a violation which legitimately skews the round, then go for the T, but I probably wont vote on a T which relies on potential abuse only.

In terms of spreading (speed reading), I can follow it up to a certain point, but the faster you go, the less likely I will understand your argument, so it can quickly become harmful to your ability to win.

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.

Hey y'all! I'm Will (he/him) and I primarily did LD on the National Circuit. Qualified to the TOC my senior year reading every argument under the sun. This does not matter though.

If you're a FGLI student or associated with a UDL, Title 1 School, or Questbridge (either a match finalist or college prep scholar), please feel free to reach out for advice regarding researching/applying to colleges. If I don't respond in a few days shoot a follow-up email.

Speechdrop is easier but I prefer email chain.

Email: trinhwilliam258@gmail.com

Feel free to ask questions to that email before or after any round/tournament!

Please format email chains properly. “Tournament Name (Year) -- Round # -- Aff School [team code] vs Neg School [team code].

Example: “TOC Digital 3 2024 Round 3 AFF Southern California Debate Union RN vs NEG Heritage WT”

I expect email chains to be sent on time (ideally sent 2 minutes before start time so we can begin on time) or else whoever is responsible for the delay gets -0.1 speaks a minute the 1AC is late. This obviously does not apply if I am not in the room or I am still getting stuff ready. That is on me and I'll let you know when I'm good. This also does not apply if the internet is being stupid.

Shortened this cause yapping is silly but if you wanna see my weird takes here's this document.

This paradigm will only include stuff for prefs/weird defaults I have that can all be reversed in two seconds.

I am a slightly more fascist but less grumpy version of Holden Bukowsky so you can pref me where you would pref them but lower cause I'm young.

The prefs below don't represent my particular liking for arguments but rather my ability to comfortably evaluate them.

LD Prefs:

1: Policy or Kritikal Arguments. T (of all types) Straight up Phil. Clash rounds

3-4: Tricky Phil (Determinism is not tricky).

4-5: Dense Theory Shells/Trix

Clipping tags and analytics have not been, are not, and will never be a thing. If your opponent cannot flow, they should lose. If your judge also cannot flow, you should strike them. Saying the words 'clipping tags' will result in a reverse postround.

The above comment is in response to the shockingly terrible state of flowing and evidence ethics in our activity. While it is a good courtesy, you are of course under no obligation to say that you are skipping a card. We should all be flowing :). If you ask for a marked doc before running CX/Prep and the speech marked less than 3 cards, I am capping your speaks at a 29. This does not apply if you take prep or CX to ask for a marked doc or wait until CX is over for the marked doc. That is perfectly fine.

I primarily flow on my laptop (paper is when things get desperate). I flow author names and top down. I will only flow the words I hear you say. I will only open the speech doc during CX, prep, or after round to read evidence. You can be as fast as you want but please slow down or clear up when I shout clear. You get 3 free clears before I start tanking speaks.

I don't know if this means anything, but some of my friends in Debate I share varying levels of takes with include Albert Cai, Aiden Kim, and Iva Liu.

TLDR:

I have massive respect for all the work people do for debates. I am tired of seeing teams not put their best foot forward because of judge dogmatism. Thus, I promise you I will do the best of my ability to evaluate every argument before me. These days, most debaters are more scared of incompetent judges than their opponents themselves. As such, I will never intervene unless necessary (I HAVE LISTED CLAIMS I REFUSE TO VOTE ON SO BE WARNED), and you should feel free to postround however aggressively you may want.

The statement below is stolen from Lizzie Su.

That being said, I will only vote on ARGUMENTs. That is claims with warrants. I have no problem voting on some absurd arguments in debate such as skep or must disclose round reports but you cannot extend a shell hidden in the 1AC for 6 seconds in the 1AR like no neg fiat and expect to win.

Non negotiable

Safety first. I refuse to vote on "arguments" such as "Truth Testing/Skep takes out misgendering/racism/other objectively morally repugnant things." Be a decent human being or else expect an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Cross-Ex is good and is best used as a speech. I am fine with you prepping while asking and answering a question but you cannot say "I'll take the rest of CX as prep."

Claims I refuse to vote on regardless of how you warrant them. (Many stolen from Alice Waters)

Evaluate/Adjudicate (you get the idea) after the 1AC/1NC.

Ad homs/ arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you, let me or tab know before round.)

Any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, etc.) (No you can still read heg good vs Indentity affs...) The debate will end.

Give me/my opponent [x] speaks

No aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument. (NO YOU CAN NOT GO FOR NO 2NR I MEETS).

Arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

Prep ends when the doc is saved. Please don't abuse this privilege to take 2 minutes to send a speech document.

Misc: All of this can be changed with one word. Debate it out.

"K debaters cheat. Policy debaters lie. If you believe both these statements to be true pref me in the 1-25th percentile."

Offense/Defense Good.

Competing Interps, DTA, No RVI

Permissibility and Presumption Negate

Comparative Worlds

Epistemic Confidence

Logic outweighs

TJFs are questionable but winnable.

Insert rehighlighting for CP solvency advocates/defense. Read for everything else. If it's a different part of the article, read it.

By insert rehiglighting, you must explain in the speech you insert it what you are trying to assert... i.e you must say "X piece of evidence concludes (insert fact) Insert!" You cannot do "X concludes neg. Insert!" The former is evidence comparison. The other is stupidity.

Same thing applies to inserting perm texts.