email: reenaalsakaji@gmail.com

4 years LD experience in high school

• spend less time regurgitating evidence and more time explaining logic/why your evidence is important!
• impact calc - bring your arguments back to the larger scope of the debate & why your arguments matter

Hello I am Sunita Annavajjhala.

I am a lay judge with no experience. Please keep this in mind and speak at the appropriate pace/speed. I dislike theory and counterplans. POIs are to be kept to three per speech.

I believe in a fair and equal debate space. I will judge based on how strong your arguments and contentions are. As long as your respectful and kind to your opponents, I will judge everyone fairly, and not based on my individual bias and personal preferences. Enjoy and have fun debating!

I am a parent judge in my first year of judging. I appreciate the quality of arguments and a normal pace.

I am a first time judge.

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

Updated September 23, 2024

My high school debate experience includes three years of National Circuit high school policy debate and several volunteer judging experiences through the New York City Urban Debate League (PF and parli). I am in my fourth year debating and periodically judging American Parliamentary (APDA) and British Parliamentary (BP) debate in college. I’m also a debate coach for, and former co-president of, the New Haven Urban Debate League. (Check out ourAdvanced Debate Institute and Yale Summer Debate Program.) I continue to occasionally judge high school parli and policy across the country (NPDI, Cal Parli, Yale Invitational).

Long story short: I’ve seen all formats of debate and all styles of debating within each format. I've debated in everything from demo rounds to North American Championships and judged everything from monthly local tournaments to the World University Debating Championships (WUDC).

What that means for you is that my RFD will be based on my flow. So please signpost clearly, don’t make your line-by-line sloppy, and don’t make me weigh arguments for you. And please, please explain the link chain. Debaters have a bad habit of suggesting that any event as inconsequential as a world leader sneezing will cause nuclear war and extinction. I sometimes prioritize tech over truth, but I have my limits. Proving links and impacts with a reasonable degree of probability is a burden to which I will hold you.* Also, providing more specific, targeted, detailed impacts is preferable to providing vague, non-unique impacts. For example, explaining why a certain policy will cause increased [insert bad thing here] in a particular area that is particularly relevant for some particular reason > explaining that the bad thing will happen in general.

*This includes theory. Theory is great, and I don't have any problem with using it strategically. But if you choose to collapse on theory in your final speech, you have to prove that something the opposition did was at least somewhat prejudicial to your fairness or your education in the round (or whatever other voting issue you present). I will vote for theory to protect fairness, ground, and/or education. I will not vote for theory just because the other team dropped point (3)(b)(ix) subpoint (7.43) of your theory shell, unless you also prove at least some ostensible violation of fairness and/or education and/or other relevant voter. For example, if you think you are winning on two or more non-theory flows, most likely you will have a difficult time proving that the other team violated your fairness -- because if they were so unfair, why would you be winning by so much? For me, theory provides a forum in which to adjudicate genuine or at least ostensible violations of reasonable debate norms. If you want to win on a strategically valuable technicality, feel free to collapse on that technicality on any other flow and I will in fact be quite sympathetic!

Lastly: While I am perfectly capable of parsing technical arguments and even the most arcane kritiks and theory, I eschew a more detailed technical paradigm. Debaters tend to either target their arguments to the individual judge, losing the sense of generality that makes debate skills most transferable to the real world, or they panic because they're trying to read a 7,000 word paradigm in 10 minutes while prepping for the round. That said, I view debate as a game, so you should feel free to be creative and test different ideas in the round. We’re here to have fun and I hope that, as a judge, I will play some small role in enriching your tournament experience.

Contact: firstname dot lastname @yale.edu

First time parent judge. Please keep track of your and your opponents speech time as I will not be checking it. Please speak slow and clear, and try not to use too much jargon. No spreading, speak well, and paint a good picture/argument

I will vote for arguments in this order:

C>T>K

Email chain: derekqchang@gmail.com

Experience: he/him, 3 years PF and 3 years of WSD, 3 year judging, 1 year coaching in the Bay (used to West Coast Spec Debate)

TLDR:

I vote off of impact calc, tech > truth, spreading is discouraged, please signpost and make contentions clear or else I'm not going to consider it in my flow, build off each other

BE RESPECTFUL - I will vote against you and crater your speaks if you are excessively disrespectful

Long Version:

Weighing:

- plz weigh in last 2 speeches, impact calc must include considerations for magnitude, timeframe, probability, weighing of 2 worlds, etc

- impact is really important - even if your opp drops all their args but u have no impact then they still can win (dependent on burden)

- optional but I would HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend mentioning past rebuttals and the contention when giving rebuttals so I can extend them through the entire flow and give opponents the opportunity to respond, having every opportunity for clash is what makes a productive debate

Rebuttals

- tech > truth

- clearly explain your logic, link, what you are attacking, etc.

Summary/Reply

- anything you bring up in 4th speech must have been brought up in 3rd speech or else it won't be weighed and will be dropped from flow

- no new arguments and no new evidence in FF, i will dock your speaks

Cross/POIS

- I don't flow cross or POIs so anything important in cross or POIs that you want on the flow must be reiterated in later speeches

Framework:

- if its something other than CBA, yes bring it up

also plz warrant and extend warrant

Shoutout: Sunny Sun for letting me borrow dis

I did speech and debate for about ~2.5 years in middle school and high school. I mainly did PuFo while doing some LD. I haven't judged in a while so I would appreciate clear organization and diction. I haven't been in the S&D world for a while so I would appreciate it if y'all did not spread. I will try to flow the best that I can, so please sign post and clearly state what your main points are !!! I have 0 knowledge of this topic before coming in, so you have to be articulate. Remember to weigh impacts, voters, values, and framework, and clearly explain to me why your arguments outweigh your opponents.

Please remember to be respectful and honest to your opponents and yourself :)

I'm a student at UC Berkeley who competed in parliamentary debate in high school. I placed 7th in California my senior year, and made it to quarterfinals at the TOC. Ranked 20th nationally per NPDL rankings. 

I'm attaching some general preferences below, but in general I'm looking for teams that are interested in having a genuinely educational, interesting debate round- I don't like things getting caught up too much on technicalities. Remember to have fun, take deep breathes, and no matter what happens know that you're still an amazing debater and you've got this. 

General Preferences:

- POIs are fine, but calling them excessively to throw off your opponent will lose you speaker points.

- Weigh impacts clearly in rebuttal speeches. I won't weigh your case for you, so even if you have stronger impacts on my flow after constructive speeches, you won't win unless you take the time to tell me why.

- If your case needs to be disclosed because you are going to spread please give it to me, but be warned that I do flow, and will only be judging you off of what I can HEAR.

- The number one voter in every round is impact calculus, and how you prove to me the effects and true weight of your impact on the world, and/or the negative impact of your opponent.

- Evidence is great, but until you can link it to your case and show me WHY its relevant to your contention, it won't matter. Evidence is there to support your claims. Don't give me an entire speech spouting statistics without showing me their relevance.

- Don't ignore the main points of clash in the debate. In final speeches, I want to hear every main point of clash encountered and why you deserve to win it. Don't focus on one point they conceded and try to win the round off of just that. Focus on the debate at large and how it went.

Good luck to all competitors!

Hello, my name is Sarah Crow. I'm a parent of two debaters, and have judged debate tournaments since 2019. I have a policy background, and my career is focused on California's social safety net.

In terms of content in the debate, I have a few expectations.

All arguments should be about the actual resolution. That means no personal attacks, and no Kritiks. This will lead to a more educational and interesting debate.

Good signposting is appreciated, and will be reflected in speaker points. It makes the round easier to follow, and makes arguments generally more persuasive.

I value quality of arguments over quantity; don't introduce arguments just because you feel as though you don't have enough. Focus on the quality of your arguments.

I appreciate a nice civil round, and I expect kindness from all involved.

Good luck!

Hi, my name is Tina Dayal and I am a parent judge. I am very new to judging.

Please explain your arguments very clearly and talk slowly.

Hello! My name is Noela, and I'm currently a freshman at Berkeley. I competed at the Varsity level in Parli debate for four years in high school, and I served as Vice-President of my debate team for a year and President for two years. I have never judged a competition before, but I have a lot of experience training judges, coaching new members, and providing constructive feedback. I prefer when debaters speak as coherently as possible; speaking faster and/or louder does not mean your argument is better and will actually make me less inclined to vote for your side. At the end of the day, I will cast my ballot to the side with the most compelling evidence, delivery, and structure. Debate is a really fun and rewarding activity, and I look forward to watching you compete!

I did nat circuit PF in high school for Campbell Hall. I am not going to be completely familiar with the conventions of Policy, LD, Parli, etc. but I will be able to flow/evaluate arguments. I can judge theory, Ks, and other meta-arguments but do not know all of the jargon and expect the same degree of warranting for those as I would for a case argument. If it's clear your opponents are unfamiliar with progressive arguments and you spam them w/ a lot of jargon anyway my bar for their responses will be a little lower. Tech>Truth. Spreading is a risky with me so I'd send a speech doc to david_eick@berkeley.edu if you're going to.

Dinesh Elaprolu

I have been involved as a debate judge for last 2 years. I am familiar with both Middle School debate and Parliamentary debate.

As a judge, I believe my role is to evaluate objectively and not introduce my personal beliefs or opinions in my decision process. I want the students to follow the ground rules and be clear with their arguments and evidences. I will flow the round, so I expect clear reasonings and properly cited evidences in my decision process. As per the rules, I will not allow new evidence or arguments in the final speeches. I am comfortable with any speed, provided the debater can articulate his reasonings well.

I expect debaters to treat each other and the judge with respect and as I mentioned above my decision will be based on debaters performance and not my personal beliefs.

Please feel free to ask me questions after the round and I will try my best to clarify your doubts.

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 am a parent judge and this is my first time judging. I appreciate clear articulate arguments and prefer a lack of spreading. Make sure to connect different arguments during the round as well as impact/tell me why they're important. Clearly tagline and signpost. Explain any jargon that an average person would not understand. Treat your opponents kindly and with respect. And lastly, make sure your arguments have evidence that clearly connects back to the topic.

Hey everyone. I'm Collin, a first-year at Cal. I did high school parli with Menlo-Atherton high school and am currently in the Debate Society of Berkeley.

This paradigm is lowkey a mess right now so if you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round

TLDR

• I will try to resolve the biggest issues in the round first, as told to me by the rebuttal speeches
• Logic/explanations > citations
• Answer POIs (at least 1 in the constructive speeches) or I will tank your speaks
• Tech is cool if both teams agree at the beginning of the round
• I'm bad at understanding spread
• If I'm part of a panel with a parent and you don't make the round accessible to them, I'll be very upset

General Stuff

I'm tech > truth, but I have a higher standard for arguments than most judges. I need your arguments to be logically coherent, with the impacts at least somewhat justified by an explanation. That doesn't mean I'll intervene and disregard your argument if I personally don't think it's well made, but I will ignore an impact if there's no attempt to prove it with warrants.

When you give your rebuttal, tell me what issues you think are the biggest and how you think I should evaluate them. I will attempt to evaluate them first.

I don't really like when judges call the arguments both teams spent most of their time on a wash and vote for a team based on a low-impact blip that the other team forgot about. I will listen to you. If you both tell me that the other side 100% causes nuclear war, I'll probably vote on that, not your low-impact environment argument that you spent 10 seconds extending.

On the flip side, I don't like it when teams name drop big impacts like climate change or nuclear war without adequate explanation, then calling it a "low-probability high-magnitude impact." I don't consider that low-probability, I consider that no probability. If you want to go for low-probability arguments, that's valid, but it's going to require actual explanation and analysis as to why I should value it more than higher-probability arguments.

That means that you're best served collapsing to a few key arguments and convincing me that you're telling a more accurate story of what will actually happen in the real world.

Please weigh your impacts against each other. The way you interpret your impacts is almost certainly very different from how I'll interpret them. The only way to get us on the same page is for you to tell me what will actually happen on your side

Framework

Aff has the right to define the topic in the PMC. I mostly expect you to be normal and follow the obvious definitions of words. There is room for trickiness. E.g, if the topic says "football," I'm okay with you defining it as soccer or flag football. However, if the topic says the NFL, you don't have any leeway. I once hit a team who defined "The United States Federal Government" as "The United Mexican States Federal Government aka the government of Mexico" That's dumb.

I find definition debates very tedious. If you don't NEED to turn this into a definitions debate, I would very much prefer that you didn't.

Also, if you're neg and don't POI or POC aff for their definitions, I'm going to be a little skeptical if you claim that aff's definitions are unclear or incomplete. But on the flipside, if you're aff and you don't accept any POIs (you can't deny POCs), I will probably be more inclined to side with neg on definitions.

For a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, but if you want to propose an alternative weighing mechanism, go for it! A lot of times, the weighing mechanism is heavily implied by the topic. If you want to propose a weighing mechanism that's a little out there, you should probably justify it

If a motion contains a "this house," I will assume that "this house" is a reasonable individual (me!). But, aff reserves the right to define this house as whatever they want

Counterplans

My favorite argument in high school. To me, a counterplan is basically saying, "why do this aff plan when there's a perfectly good alternative we could do instead." Love them. Mwah

One round, we had the topic "This house believes that the Met should guarantee that at least 50% of its art is created by women-identifying artists." I ran the counterplan: 40% women, 40% men, 20% non-binary/gender non-conforming.

You are best served using counterplans to shift the debate from being about squo vs anything to being about the specifics of aff's plan. This means that you should pair your cp with disads that are aff specific.

Competition

• A permutation is an argument that challenges whether the counterplan is actually competitive, i.e., it's saying that it's perfectly possible—and even good—to do both the plan and the counterplan
• Perms are a test of competition, but if aff wants to run the perm as their new advocacy, go for it
• Competition through net benefits is fine
• To me, perms are quite flexible. If aff can very easily alter your cp to make it non-competitive while keeping all of the benefits, I consider your plan non-competitive and permeable. e.g "our counterplan is competitive because we take their funding." Okay, then why can't aff just do both plans, but with different funding.
• PICs are vaguely defined (so if you're running theory you better define them hint hint). The most extreme form of pics—e.g aff is required to support a specific bill, so you alter a single clause of the bill and call it a counterplan— are noncompetitive imo. That is essentially just affs plan. Also, if we're talking about real-world, that wouldn't even be a counterplan—that would be an amendment to a bill.

Speaker points

For LO/PM, your speaker points are going to come more from your rebuttal speeches than your constructives. Clarify the round, point out the most important arguments, weigh them against each other, etc. Basically just be a good rebuttal speaker

For members, your speaker points are going to come from how well you organize your speeches and how well you counter arguments.

Things that can tank your speaking points

• being disrespectful to your opponents
• not taking at least 1 POI
• very obviously misrepresenting your opponents arguments
• lying
• being disorganized
• not clarifying jargon

POIs

I think POIs are super important in parli. I don't care how you use them but you should be using them. Asking good POIs will boost your speaking points. I expect you to answer at least 1 POI in your speech—or else I will take away speaking points (this obviously doesn't apply if you weren't asked any POIs). If you take more than one POI, I'll view that positively.

Misc

I don't protect the flow. Call the point of order. I'll try my best to give a ruling immediately.

Don't go over time. I won't flow after the grace period

I don't like lying or making up evidence. I'm pretty well-read, so if you lie, there's a good chance I'll know. I'm not going to intervene against a lie if it's uncontested (after all I'm tech over truth) but lying will also tank your speaks. Also, if you lie and your opponent calls you out, I will side with your opponent on that argument.

Tech -

I care a lot about accessibility, and I feel that a lay round is the most accessible for people. If you're a technical team debating a non-technical team, I'm cool if you use some of the more self-explanatory jargon (e.g counterplan, weighing mechanism), but I expect you to explain some of the less intuitive jargon (e.g permutation, interpretation etc). Literally once sentence is fine. Also, I will expect you to take more POIs and listen to slow/clear. You can still run 'technical arguments' e.g. theory, but you'd better explain it VERY well. Also, I won't vote for tricky arguments like "they should lose because they didn't have an interp" if they're clearly contesting your interp but just didn't explicitly provide one of their own.

That being said, if both teams prefer a technical round, I'm completely for it. I'm decently familiar with technical debate. Please note that I struggle to understand speed. Going faster than conversational is fine, but try to vary your tone and include pauses. This is my technical paradigm:

Theory

I don't really care about proven abuse lmao. Go off, run the whackiest arguments you can think of, but be ready to respond to an RVI. The only piece of structure I care about is a clear, written interp. I also expect a pre-fiat impact and explanations of why your voters matter. Other than that, do what makes you feel happy.

I am receptive to speed theory.

Ks

I am probably not the judge for you to run a K. I'll listen to Ks and I think they're cool, but I am not very experienced with them and a lot of your arguments will probably feel non-unique, particularly if you're spreading.

To me, a lot of Ks feel non-unique, especially when you try to go pre-fiat. That means I am very, very receptive to perms. I don't think you're competitive because "you introduced important analysis and they didn't" or whatever. If you're running a K, make sure to have a good alternative that has an actual unique link. If you're running an aff K, be ready to respond to theory and a perm.

IVIs

I occasionally ran these in high school but I still have no idea what they are. I literally just treated them as less-structured theory. You should not do this for me because I don't really require structure on theory. If you're running an actual IVI, just make sure to tell me how I should evaluate the round.

Praveen Gondra: I look forward to hearing your debates. Don’t rush your speech and try to take up your speech time.

As a judge, I strongly prefer and lean towards calm, strong speakers who make eye contact.

• Maintain decorum.

• Do not be rude.

• Do not speak over each other or cut people off.

Take your time to convey your points and thoroughly extend. Please do not spread.

Public Forum: I will be looking forward to the rebuttal speech and verbal exchange during crossfire.

Parli: I find sign posting very important, so try your best to include off time roadmaps and sign post during your speeches. Accept a fair amount of POIs and take the full speaking time to the best of your ability.

Have fun! :)

Email: daniel_qiyang_huang@berkeley.com

Pronounce: he/him/his

Experience: 2 years of BP, 2 years of judging

Judging metrics:

Teams win debates by being persuasive with respect to the burdens their side of the debate is attempting to prove.

I will assess the persuasiveness of speeches as an 'Ordinary Intelligent Voter', avoiding bias and specialized knowledge.

Persuasiveness will be assessed based on:

1. Mechanism, the completeness of the argument, and the response to the rebuttal made by the opponent.

2. Impact, weighing to prove the importance of the arguments over what is claimed by the opponent.

3. Engagement, how successful is the engagement against opponent's arguments.

Tips:

New arguments brought in the reply speech will be disregarded.

POIs is not mandatory but highly encouraged to make the debate more engaging. Please be polite when asking for POIs.

If there are contradictions on one bench, only the first claim will be taken into account, the later claim will be disregarded.

Please be RESPECTFUL towards others during the debate and obey the equity policy, do not make discriminatory argumentation targeting at certain group.

Email: mindyjia@berkeley.edu

Pronouns: she/her

Experience: 4 years of PF, 2 years of WSD, a year of policy.

I make decisions based on impacts and the reasoning based on which these impacts are established. Please weigh impacts and don't hold off until the final speech. Please also provide a weighing scale i.e. magnitude, timeframe, worlds, etc. It is preferable to establish your impacts through clash analysis.

In terms of the reasoning, please don't dump statistics without explaining how they serve your contention. Provide clear logical links to establish effective proof.

New arguments brought up in the 4th speech will not be considered.

Good luck!

Background: 4 years of Public Forum Debate Experience, Lots of Speech Experience, current member of the Cal Parli team.

General Paradigms:

• Make sure your warranting is sound. Creating link chains and reaching impacts only works for me if you have good substance to your arguments.
• For later speeches, remind yourself to balance offense/defense and prioritize arguments that stand better on the flow. Do not feel the need to pace through going over every single thing that has been said in the round to not gain any offense or frontlines on your case.
• Be respectful. Have fun.

TRUTH > tech

No tech, please.

Keep in mind, I'm a parent judge!

Convince me through a clear argument, stats, clear refutations. I love clarity. If I find out/strongly suspect stats are fabricated, I will disregard the whole argument, not just the stat.

Good luck, be nice, and have fun!

✨✨✨✨✨

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.

This is my first time judging. I did debate very briefly in high school years ago. I am unfamiliar with any of the topics and will likely be unable to understand technical jargon. I would also appreciate it if people did not spread. Do not interrupt speakers.

email chain: heaju16018@berkeley.edu

Experience: she/her, 2 years of intervarsity level debate, 1 year of judging

I used to keep detailed notes throughout the round. Please signpost and keep your argument clear and simple.

Please impact your arguments, use comparative statements, and weigh the impact in speeches. I would highly recommend approaching rebuttals with ‘Even if’.

No new materials brought up in 4th speech might be credited to the full extent unless they have been brought up in previous speeches.

Lastly, be respectful and kind to your opponent. Hope you have fun!

"Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out." - My coach and professor Dr. Mungin.

I founded the Debate Club at Benicia High School in 2015 and became the program’s coach in 2017 after graduating from Benicia. For the past seven years, I have coached Parliamentary and Public Forum. Likewise, I competed in Parli, Extemp, and Impromptu at Solano Community College. Later receiving a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science — Summa Cum Laude and a Master of Public Policy and Administration at CSU Sacramento. I now work in the California State Legislature as a Legislative Assistant. Similarly, I have worked on several political campaigns.

Need to Know:

I don't tend to have strong preferences for how you should debate. I instead prefer to see the diversity of styles out there.

My feedback normally consists of what I believe you didn't adequately respond to and how you could have gone about doing so. This is more so to aid in future rounds than anything else.

Spreading:

I don't spread but I do talk at a fast pace. I recommend you do so also or slower when you prefer so I that I can flow.

Speaker Points:

One time in a PF round evidence was read that there has only ever been one successful coup. Later that same team asked during cross: "Name one successful coup? No, wait name two. We know there's only ever been one." A good joke increases your speaker points dramatically.

Last updated: 2/2/2024 (Evergreen)

General:

I am a tabula rasa judge who will do my best to judge arguments based on the flow. Please do not spread or exceed significantly faster than the conversational pace because I am not the fastest at taking notes... I have judged for 4 years (Public Forum/LD/Parli) and mainly lay debate, however I am down to hearing progressive arguments if explained clearly and well.

Start all speeches with an off-time roadmap: Signpost and tagline extremely clearly. I cannot flow you if I do not know where you are. Please take at least 1-2 POIs per speech as I believe there is a purpose in them existing in the first place.. I will disclose my result at the end given that this does not go against tournament protocol.Finish on time as well.The grace period is illegitimate. You get your minutes and then you are done. Granted, I will not explicitly tell you your time is up -> that is for you and your opponents to enforce in-round.

Case:

This is my favorite type of debate. Simple and easy -> run the status quo or a counterplan if you are Neg and run a plan if you are gov. Be specific but do not spend 50% of your speech on top-of-case. I need lots of weighing and terminalization in the MG/MO and the clean extensions through the LOR/PMR. I barely protect, it is best to call the POO.A good collapse into the key voters and instructing me where to vote and why is the key to winning my ballot. Statistics and empirics are underrated in Parli: But do not lie please. Do not rely on them entirely to the point where you have no logic, but there should be a good balance and mix of logic and evidence.

Theory:

Will never vote on Friv T: I will evaluate actual theory against "real abuse", but explain every single jargonistic-like term in great detail. Err on the side of caution, I have judged very very few progressive rounds. I do not default to anything. If you do not tell me anything I can simply not evaluate it -> I also do not randomly put theory before case, that is up for you guys to argue. Overall, I would recommend just sticking to the case given my wavy evaluation of theory, but if there is actual proven abuse in the debate round then it is best to run it in some form or another.

Kritiks:

Never heard a Kritik before in a round. Best not to run this, I don't understand this concept still to this day. You can try, but explain everything in great detail.

Overall, be respectful to your opponents, it goes a long way for speaker points as well. Best to run a traditional, slower case debate with really solid impacting and statistics. If you collapse into voter issues and effectively rebut the opponent's points, you have a good shot at winning the round.

Good luck to everyone.

Hello! This is my first time judging in any category of debate. My speech/debate experience is roughly 3 years, between junior high and high school. I competed in PF and LD.

Please just assume that I am a lay judge. I won't put much weight on style, but I'm not up-to-date with the most recent strategies or theories either, so your statements should be as coherent and explicit as possible.

Also, for the sake of my (very) rusty flowing skills, please signpost and explain your points with care, and try to limit your spreading; I can't weigh anything that I don't catch. Engagement with your opponents' points will be weighted far more than appeals to my personal beliefs or emotions.

Framework-related arguments (e.g. K, theory) very much need to be a. explained clearly, and b. warranted and validly linked to the topic.

I absolutely won't ignore any disrespectful or inconsiderate comments.

You all have prepared hard for this, so I will do my best to conduct a fair and enjoyable round. Best of luck!

I am a good judge. trust me ;)

but fr tho i debated for 5 years (Parli).

I've seen heard and experienced anything that could be thrown around in any round at any level (but pls do surprise me)

good innovative responses and points > friv tech arguments (but call opps out for taking away ground, being extra t, K, etc all the good stuff)

use smart responses...don't just say smth isn't true, use line of reasoning to prove why its not true.

pls weigh both sides, call out turns, delinks etc

I enjoy logical argumentation and reasoning. There is no need to impress me with complicated jargon, as they do not add to your argument. I also do not enjoy speed debating and spreading, where some debators try to say things as fast as possible, as that is not reflected in our real world of reasoning.

I am a parent judge.

Parli experience only – I did some (informal, not circuit) in HS and marginal APDA/BP in college. I have coached and judged with the New Haven Urban Debate League for two years. Here is the document I give our judges at NHUDL. I think it's a fairly accessible and helpful (if basic) look into how I judge a debate round (just read first 2 pages).

I judge traditional debate. I am not familiar with West Coast or techy styles and don't know my way around theory and K jargon. If you start throwing words and acronyms around without explaining their use I will assume you're just having fun with fancy toys. I am apprehensive about tech because I see debate as useful only insofar as it helps you think and solve all those real-world issues you claim to care for, not as it helps you win debate rounds. That said, if you can warrant your higher-level, meta arguments and explain why I should care, I'll take them into consideration.

Explain explain explain. Talk to me as you would talk to an invertebrate. If you overwhelm your opponents with many silly points I will penalize them for not responding, but I will rarely ever vote for something I think is a bad argument. You do need to have a bare minimum of being proactive: explain to me how you won, how your opponents failed, and weigh the two sides. Most contentions are bad. It is your job to parse which ones are least bad, not mine.

To flow, I write on paper in cute little columns. If you spread, my columns will be strained, and I will be unhappy. I do not have object permanence so you need to hammer things in, clearly.

What strategies do I like to hear? Anything under the sun but especially creative arguments. Be kind-hearted and sincere, nothing edgy please. Be respectful, especially toward your partners. You can't affect anyone's performance but your own.

New to Parli. I prefer clarity over speed. I am a partner at a consulting firm. I love clarity, simplicity and humility.

I am a lay judge with almost no experience. I would like to see arguments in rounds that are centered around answering the resolution and less on the impact. I like Topgun and Frozen references :)

Berkeley Class of 2025 - Majoring in Political Science, Economics, and Data Science with a minor in Public Policy

I went to Tracy High School, and I competed in Public Forum for 5 years with Capitol Debate (Capitol CM), this is my third year on the Berkeley British Parli Team

I'm flow in PF, but in any event other than PF please consider me lay!!

When adding me to email chains, email me at preethimo29@gmail.com with the header formatted like "Capitol CM v Capitol BC" with your team listed first

If you are lost on our campus, feel free to email me for help (subject line should be in the format "LOST!: 'team name'")!

Also feel free to email me with any RFD questions/advice on literally anything (debate, college, cal, greek life, etc) (subject line should start with "ADVICE:")

General:

• Pre-flow before please (we used to print ours the night before.. highly recommend)
• Please keep track of your own preps/speech times
• finding evidence shouldn't take more than a minute -- if it's not linked and ready don't run it
• Don't show paraphrased evidence if it's called for, have the original wording ready
• misconstrued evidence is just embarrassing for you
• tech>truth ... for the most part with my discretion
• ROADMAP & SIGNPOST! It makes life so much easier for everyone - I enjoy a good old off-time road map
• don't just name-drop cards, unless it's late in the round and you have already mentioned it numerous times, remind me what the card said
• spreading is fine, but if you suck at spreading and I can't understand what you're saying... that's on you
• I'll say "clear" if you need to speak clearer/ slow down -- your opponent has the same right
• I don't flow in cross, although I do listen.. remind me of anything you want me to flow in your speech
• Extend your case in first rebuttal... this can be through cross-applications to their case, but don't drop your whole case
• avoid new arguments in second summary... you should have frontlined during your rebuttal
• everything in final focus must be in summary -- if you need to respond to something new utilize prior arguments and cards
• no new weighing or arguments in second final focus especially
• if it's not in final focus I won't vote for it
• weigh! Do the work for me!

Theory/Ks:

• I hate disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory... however I will still vote for it reluctantly if it's run well (I also dislike trigger warning theory in most contexts)
• I strongly prefer not to judge theory/K rounds! I will not let this affect me as a judge, but be cognizant...
• When responding to theory/Ks, I don't care about structure, just give an adequate response and make sure to engage with it -- don't stress and treat it like a normal contention

Speaks:

• don't be rude or you'll get <25 speaks
• I expect respect, both for the other team and to me during RFDs
• be accessible to your opponents! if it is clear they cannot handle you spreading/using jargon, I will be far more impressed if you are able to engage in a meaningful debate with them rather than you flouting your experience/access to coaching
• I appreciate humor & puns, have fun with the debate (while being RESPECTFUL)

ONLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE

• + 1 speaks if you start a speech with "if pleases your grace" in a British accent and do a curtsy
• or + 1 speaks for a game of thrones reference

My favorite judge is Gabe Rusk... refer to his paradigm for more specifics on how I judge

Debate Society of Berkeley

No K's and no Theory, I will not vote on either.

I vote off of impact calc, tech > truth, spreading is discouraged, please sign post and make contentions clear.

Be respectful.

I am a parent debate judge. These are some of the things I will be looking for while judging

1. Content rich definition and points.
2. Speak clearly.
3. Empirical evidence.
4. Respect each other.

I debate Parli for four years at WHS and now I study nuclear engineering @ Berkeley

TLDR: I am a flow judge and evaluate tech>truth, I like evidence-based debates and will always evaluate evidence-based arguments and refs over every logical warrant unless you give me explicit reasons to do otherwise. If you are running a K you might want to refer to that part of the paradigm. I will also evaluate scientific evidence above all other types of evidence, I'll refer you to the K section if you want to know how this affects Ks.

Presentation:

please keep yourself to a speed that will let me comprehend you, (i.e. please don't spread your lungs out, I can take fast speeds but I'm growing old and my ability to understand speeches delivered at mach speed is waning).

I don't really care about formalities, just signpost.

I dislike speaker points, I will give you them based on how well you wrote your arguments

All texts in chat

Case:

This really should be like every other judge in parli debate. Evidence, warrants, impacts, extensions, etc. I like wide collapses because it gives me multiple reasons to prefer your advocacy. If you have a narrow collapse and it is a big-stick/round winner impact then I will obviously evaluate that above. You have to weigh impacts, if you don't you will lose. If both sides fail to weigh impacts, I will default to who wins their links.

- Constitutionality is NOT an impact, the constitution can be amended and changed.

Theory:

I am quite familiar with theory and was a bit of a theory hack in high school. I dislike lay theory a lot, don't try running it because it's really unclear what I'm supposed to do with it. If you are going to run theory, run it in Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters format. Theory is very viable when run correctly and I will not hesitate to vote on it. Also, extend your standards and make sure to do work on them because I often evaluate that before any major voter level arguments.

Some notes on Theory:

If your opponent runs Trigger Warning Theory, just apologize and make sure to read trigger warnings in future speeches. I don't want people arguing against the concept of trigger warnings because that's not only morally reprehensible but it also sets a dangerous precedent. If you still do not read relevant trigger warnings after your opponent has asked you or has run theory on you, I will drop you and tank your speaks.

"Friv Theory" is completely fine and I don't really have an issue with it unless it requires your opponents to do something like take off their shoes which can make them really uncomfortable. Otherwise, it is just as valid as any other argument in the debate. Tricks are super fun to judge and make the debate interesting.

I default to competing interps over reasonability; No preference for Fairness vs Education; If you run a K and decide to leverage it against Theory, it needs to be extremely well done. (If you say that Fairness skews eval of the flow, I will not consider opposition arguments about pre-round equity unless they manage to explain how it also skews eval of the flow); I will not eval "spirit of the interp" arguments.

I evaluate RVIs and have a fairly low threshold for them.

Finally, I am perfectly fine with replacing the weighing mechanism/definition if both sides agree to it and won't penalize either side. It's not necessary to run theory in those instances.

Kritiks

TLDR: You have to run the K super super well, I don't really have a tolerance for bad/weak argumentation on the K level. This means that given the information you provide, your links and impacts have to make logical sense to someone who has never read the source material. Your alt solvency also has to be really well explained, Ks are an all or nothing here, if you run a bad K that makes no logical sense I will point out logical inconsistencies and give your opponent the win by default.

Familiar Lit Areas:

- Security

- SetCol

- Anthro

- Religion

- Cap

Just because I mainly know these specific Lit Areas doesn't mean that I won't evaluate any other K. I love new and interesting Ks with interesting ideologies/ important systematic issues to highlight.

I love Ks and love seeing them be debated but there are very important boundaries to not cross.

POMO

I don't like pomo. I can briefly explain why if you ask but I would stray away from most pomo, nietzsche is fine tho.

Identity Ks

Identity Ks are important in debate because they are used as survival strats by marginalized groups in this space. That being said I have 3 main notes about Identity Ks.

1. Every other judge has already said this but DO NOT RUN A K ABOUT A GROUP YOU ARE NOT PART OF. I will drop you.

2. Do not assume your opponent to be CisHet, this can cause forced outing, and attempting to do so will result in you being dropped

3. Attacking the concept of religion or highlighting its rhetorical violence is NOT the same as attacking members of a specific religion. The former is a valid argument, the latter is an equity violation.

K Generics

Read extensive framework; Bonus points if your framework allows your opponent to leverage their case which means more clash

I will evaluate Theory against Ks so be prepared for that

Links are pretty important and I don't like the Epistemic Skew argument very much because it nonuniques itself imo. This means you have to actually win your links substantially. I am also very receptive to the perm double bind.

If you have any questions, please ask them before the round or email me at mehulnair@berkeley.edu.

Hey, everyone! This is Jude Nieves from the Debate Society of Berkeley. I wish you all luck in the rounds that you compete in! I will do my best to judge the rounds as faithfully and fairly as I possibly can. Never hesitate to ask any questions! Below, you will find some relevant information about me as a judge, and how to win my rounds.

Related Experience/Background:

• 2 years of Varsity Mock Trial at Clovis West High School
• Former Equity Director and active member of the Debate Society of Berkeley
• Lead Coach (public speaking and debate coach) with The Practice Space
• 2 years of Youth Court experience
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Liaison with The Daily Californian
• Aspiring lawyer; genuine passion for debate, justice and equity

Being an aspiring future lawyer, I am going to treat these rounds as professionally as possible.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: An unfortunate repercussion of being a judge is that I often have to be the messenger of bad news. With that in mind, the reality of being a judge is that regardless of whether you win or lose, you may not agree with everything I decide. All I ask is that even if you don't agree, know that I will always do my best to judge these rounds fairly, considering all rules and points, with absolutely no bias or indecision. I care about fairness in these rounds, and I hold this to a high standard. Please keep that in mind as I announce any verdicts I make, and take the initiative to respect judge decisions.

In order to win in my rounds, you must:

• Show up to the debate round on time (you'd better :P)
• Present sound evidence, with possible rebuttals acknowledged preemptively in your speech ("prebuttals")
• Be professional and highly organized while also maintaining an optimistic, likeable tone
• Explain, in detail and with confidence, each contention that you have and why it is better than those of your opponents
• Make your arguments organized and easy to follow, so that I can process your words and flow them properly (the more understandable your speech is, the better my flow is, and the better you will score!)
• Please, please, PLEASE have your camera on (if it's a Zoom tournament)!!! It makes it a million times easier to flow. Plus, I want to see whose voice I'm hearing :D

As a little bit of a hint: the more professional and organized you are, the more likely you will get higher speaker points in my rounds.

I wish you all luck! I will maintain my kindness and optimism for you all. It's better to have a judge that gives you an emotional refresher rather than one who's so domineering that it only compounds your stress. Also, losing the debate does not necessarily indicate that you failed or performed poorly; sometimes, it's simply where the logic leans. So KEEP YOUR HEAD HELD UP HIGH NO MATTER WHAT! I'll try my best to judge fairly as well, though keep in mind I am new to this, since none of my high schools had debate clubs o.o

And remember: you've got this! Just by being here, you're already winning! <3

Hey! I'm Alex and I'm a sophomore at Berkeley majoring in econ. I did Parli for all 4 years at Menlo-Atherton HS and now compete with the Debate Society of Berkeley. I was fairly successful - won SVUDL 1 (21') + finals at Cal Parli (21') and Stephen Stewart (22'), but I had my share of 0-5s, 1-4s and 2-3s at the start of my career. I'll disclose and give feedback after the round (so long as the tournament doesn't yell at me for it), but if you want additional comments after that, I can email you more of my thoughts. You can also send me an email (alexparikh-briggs@berkeley.edu) if you want more specific feedback/help with something that happened in round.

Non Parli:

If I end up judging you for an event other than Parli, please just err on the side of caution. Idk the nuances of these events too well, but that isn't to say to treat me like a lay judge. Everything below still applies (mostly).

Misc:

tech>truth. I hate intervention, so I literally won’t intervene against anything unless it’s racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. That being said, please just respond to bad arguments so I don’t have to vote on them.

Speed: I will admit, I’m not the greatest with speed. I can handle faster than conversational for sure but I probably can’t handle double breaths. General rule: I think as long as you aren’t going as fast as you possibly can it should be ok. I’ll slow/clear if needed.

POI/POO: Use POI’s. I will flow them. Make sure they are a question, but as long as you do that, I’m fine with tricky/interesting POI’s.

• POO’s: Just call them if you think it’s new. I’ll do my best to protect, but if I screw up, I don’t want that to cost you.

Time: I’ll time and give 0-30 seconds grace (I’ll ask both teams how much grace they want b4 the round starts and we’ll do what you agree on). The millisecond you go overtime, I’m not flowing.

Tag teaming is chill, maybe not every sentence though.

• On that note, I’ll give speaks based on execution of strategy and your overall contribution to the round. This means I don’t care how pretty your speech is, I just care about what you’re saying. I’ll be pretty generous and probably give an average speech around a 28 and adjust from there. Feel free to swear.

If I have nothing to vote on at the end of the round, I’ll presume neg (this shouldn’t happen). If there is a CP, then I’ll presume aff. If the aff then does a perm “do both,” it goes back to NEG. Ask me about this before the round if this is confusing.

Please collapse in rebuttal. Tell me what you want me to vote on.

• If you’re the LOR, DO NOT REPEAT THE MO. (I did this several times, it’s ok, but try not to).

Case:

I did all the different styles - APDA/East Coast, more “Flay'' west coast, and “tech”/NPDA west coast debate. This means that whatever style of debate u want to have is fine with me. That said, here are a few things:

l’ll go off of net bens if I get no other framing. Feel free to be squirrelly, just be ready for fairness/theory arguments.

Every argument should have some form of claim, warrant, and impact. Obviously, feel free to beef these up and use whatever structure you want (Uniqueness/Link/Impact is what I did mostly)

Evidence is cool, just make sure you can explain to me why that evidence is the way it is. For example, if you read me the argument “1 year of poverty takes off 7 years of your life” but can’t tell me why that’s true, I can’t vote on it/evaluate it.

Do weighing. This means DIRECTLY, not implying, why your impact is more important than the other side. I have no defaults. If one team weighs and the other doesn’t I'll just prioritize that framing. If one team goes for magnitude and the other goes for probability, whichever team does meta weighing is what I prefer. If there is no metaweighing, well… I’ll probably have to intervene sadly. Use different forms of weighing like scope, reversibility, etc. Your opponents won’t know how to handle this. I know this is hard, so just do your best. I struggled with it as well.

I really like CP’s. My partner and I literally read advantage CP’s whenever it was possible. Given this, I’ll evaluate whatever CP you want to read, LIKE ACTUALLY, ANYTHING. Just make sure it’s well constructed. Be prepared for your opponents and I to ask you for a text. If it needs to be a paragraph, so be it. I'm down for whacky arguments that you don't think most judges would buy. If it’s not a policy round, just call it a counter advocacy to avoid the trichonomy debate, I'll treat it the same. Same thing if the resolution starts with “This house.”

• If you're the Aff and you’re gonna perm, please tell me whether it’s a test of competition or you’re "doing both"/taking the advocacy. I don’t default here so you need to explain it to me.

• Condo is fine, but be ready for theory.

• Don't do all this work making a nice CP and then lose on a perm. Make sure u think about this during prep. Competition on net bens is fine, u just have to win that then.

Theory:

Definitely my favorite debate argument. I will listen/vote on any theory argument you read. This includes friv t (my threshold for voting on theory is very low lol). I literally ran the interp, during an online tournament, “All participants in a debate round must have their cameras off.” One of the voters was climate change - apparently having ur video on has a 97% greater impact on the environment.

Absolutely no defaults on theory - tell me it’s apriori, tell me drop debater/argument, tell me no RVI’s, tell me competing interps (reasonability is fine too, just give me a brightline), etc.

• On that note, if you’re against friv t, go for an RVI. I don’t understand why people are so against it in parli. You should be able to win the theory argument (friv t is usually easy to respond to) and in that case you win the round.

Again, any shell you can possibly think of is fine. If you run a shell that I haven’t heard before, I’ll boost ur speaks by a full point. I don't really understand how 30 speaks theory works, but if you make it make sense to me, I'll probably just give both of y'all 30 speaks.

The format of your shell, while I’d prefer interp/violation/standards/voters, doesn’t matter. I’ll vote on paragraph theory as long as all of the elements are sort of there.

I'm lumping this with theory because that's where it seems to appear most: IVI's. I'm willing to vote on these, but I need them to be layered and have pre-fiat education/fairness impact that is pretty large. Thus, my threshold for voting on IVI's is much greater than for theory (usually cuz these are just blipped out in 20 seconds, if they're actually explained then probably on par with theory).

K’s:

I will admit, it was hard for me to engage in K’s in high school because that almost always meant my partner and I would get spread out. That being said, if you can slow it down just a tad, I’m totally willing to vote on it. I’m not really familiar with much of the lit you might be using other than cap stuff. Because of what I said above, accessibility matters a lot to me. If you’re running a k, take lots of questions to make sure the other team can engage with you. Also, if they keep saying slow and you just don’t slow, it will be very hard for me to vote for you.

Valid ways to respond to K’s (for teams that aren’t the most familiar):

Read counter-framework/Attack Framework

Attack the Alt

Read Theory

Attack Links

Attack Impacts

I also am not gonna default that K’s come before case, you need to tell me this.

I am new parent judge and new to Parli. I am an Engineering Director at Workday and love reading, politics, philosophy and music.

It's multiple rounds of debating, so view it as a marathon and not a race. Articulate clearly, defend your choices but also be forceful and analytical when you call out the opposing arguments. Good luck and have fun!!

Hi, my name is Ruturaj Pathak, and I flow the debate. I have been judging debates for 6 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.

Logic and reasoning are key in parle.

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.

New to Judging, appreciate normal pace, meaningful elaborations, quality over quantity and RESPECTFUL debating.

I am a native speaker of French, I like it when participants strive for clarity over speed, and substance over jargon.

Therefore, I propose a paradigm grounded in the following principles:

• Introduction and Taglines: Let's begin with introductions, establishing yourselves and your perspectives.
• Be yourself, be proud of your opinions, don´t hesitate to ask questions or mention fun facts
• My legal background has instilled in me the value of precision and structure.
• Respectful Discourse: Let's engage in respectful exchanges, acknowledging opposing viewpoints without resorting to personal attacks.Remember,we are all here to learn and grow,not to belittle or demean.
• As a parent judge, I will evaluate your performance withfairness and empathy.
• As a French, I like crepes and baguettes a lot, but I love pancakes maybe as much
• Merci et bonne chance!

Hello!

I am a parent Judge.

I have been judging parliamentary debate since December 2023.

I am a first-year judge, and am not experienced with technical debate. Please explain your arguments very clearly. Provide logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument. Please be courteous .Look forward to a fun learning experience! :)

Nothing too crazy - don't spread too much, ( I can handle a little though)

tech > truth

value unique arguments

please explain logic chains

don't just spam evidence, explain what it means

model if you can

Email chain: zachary.siegel@gmail.com

Experience: he/him, new judge

TLDR:

I vote off of impact calc, tech > truth, spreading is discouraged, please signpost and make contentions clear or else I'm not going to consider it in my flow, build off each other

BE RESPECTFUL - I will vote against you and crater your speaks if you are excessively disrespectful

Long Version:

Weighing:

- plz weigh in last 2 speeches, impact calc must include considerations for magnitude, timeframe, probability, weighing of 2 worlds, etc

- impact is really important - even if your opp drops all their args but u have no impact then they still can win (dependent on burden)

- optional but I would HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend mentioning past rebuttals and the contention when giving rebuttals so I can extend them through the entire flow and give opponents the opportunity to respond, having every opportunity for clash is what makes a productive debate

Rebuttals

- tech > truth

- clearly explain your logic, link, what you are attacking, etc.

Summary/Reply

- anything you bring up in 4th speech must have been brought up in 3rd speech or else it won't be weighed and will be dropped from flow

- no new arguments and no new evidence in FF, i will dock your speaks

Cross/POIS

- I don't flow cross or POIs so anything important in cross or POIs that you want on the flow must be reiterated in later speeches

Framework:

- if its something other than CBA, yes bring it up

also plz warrant and extend warrant

Shoutout: Sunny Sun for letting me borrow dis

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.

Hi my name is Amrita Thomas, I’ve been judging parliamentary debate since the beginning of 2023. I am a parent judge so I’ll try my best. But I don’t know the bigger debate terms. So please explain to me in detail. Thank you.

Summary: I am a college debater and high school coach who understands the fundamentals of debate and loves hearing people argue.

Background:

4 years High School Parliamentary debate at Analy High School

3 years British Parliamentary debate at UC Berkeley

3 years Coaching at Berkeley High School

Judging:

I will flow the round and give the win based on which team can provide a more persuasive case. I am not a judge that will give you an auto-loss for not understanding the 17-step formula that the opposition (or your own team) expects you or others to know before the round, but I do consider weighing and proving your arguments to be true as integral to the round.

TO WIN THE ROUND, YOU MUST:
1. Show up to the debate (hopefully)

2. Have good arguments

3. Explain why those arguments matter (the impacts)

4. Attack your opponent's arguments

5. Explain why your arguments are stronger than your opponents (the weighing)

While that seems simple, I've seen many rounds where most of those steps go missing.

Although I will be flowing the round, I will not be filling in the blanks for your case. If you'd like to make my life easier, please signpost as you speak, so I understand where you are in the round.

Evidence alone does not win you rounds. Stating evidence doesn't mean I will understand why it is essential to your case, nor will I understand its general warranting unless you can explicitly tell me.

If there are fundamental disagreements about Definitions or Weighing Mechanisms, I will generally default to Government unless Opposition can prove the definition abusive.

Miscellaneous Jargon:

If you need to spread, you may, but I would prefer if you don't. I can't vote for your side if I can't flow your arguments.

Do not expect me to understand your Shells and Ks and Theory arguments. I generally do not vote on jargon UNLESS it can be clearly explained why it is more important than the debate round you were assigned to defend.

Reminder:

You are a fantastic human who's trying your best, so don't feel bad if you make a mistake or lose the round :)

To give some background of my debate history I did 4 years of policy debate in high school with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League from 2018-2022. In 2023 I joined the Berkeley Debate Society that competes in the British Parliamentary format. As for my preferences I enjoy hearing K arguments, I really take in consideration impact calc, and I like seeing clash in a round. Structural arguments like framework and T are voters so they must be addressed if you lose on those you lose the ballot. Make sure to sign post, I believe making the round easy to follow is a part of being a good debater. Keep track of your own time as well. I will make sure you don't go over your allotted time but I expect you to respect the limits in place without me having to enforce them. If you ever want further feedback email me at brivlltr@berkeley.edu.

Email chain: finnegan_wright@berkeley.edu

Pronouns: they/he

Experience: First year Debate Society Berkeley member. General public speaking and advocacy (4 years)

TLDR:

I vote off of impact calc, tech > truth, spreading is discouraged, please signpost and make contentions clear or else I'm not going to consider it in my flow, build off each other

BE RESPECTFUL - I will vote against you and crater your speaks if you are excessively disrespectful

Long Version:

Weighing:

- Please weigh in last 2 speeches, impact calc must include considerations for magnitude, timeframe, probability, weighing of 2 worlds, etc

- Impact is really important - even if your opp drops all their args but u have no impact then they still can win (dependent on burden)

- Optional but I would HIGHLY recommend mentioning past rebuttals and the contention when giving rebuttals so I can extend them through the entire flow and give opponents the opportunity to respond, having every opportunity for clash is what makes a productive debate

Rebuttals

- Tech > truth

- Clearly explain your logic, link, what you are attacking, etc.

Summary/Reply

- Anything you bring up in 4th speech must have been brought up in 3rd speech or else it won't be weighed and will be dropped from flow

- No new arguments and no new evidence in FF, i will dock your speaks

Cross/POIS

- I don't flow cross or POIs so anything important in cross or POIs that you want on the flow must be reiterated in later speeches

Framework:

- If its something other than CBA, yes bring it up

Also please warrant and extend warrant

Thanks Derek for letting me borrow these paradigms

This is my first time judging.

World Schools and British Parliamentary judge. Hate theory, love weighing.

Hi! I am a parent judge. Although I am flay, I have judged for many years and has experience to some extent. Here are a few preferences that may win you a round:

1. Please be nice to your opponents. If something rude or offensive is brought in, I will automatically vote for the other side.

2. Please do not spread. You can speak at a fast pace as long as it is clear, although I do prefer a slower and steadier pace.

3. When your opponents ask for cards, please give them in less than 2 minutes. After 2 minutes is up, it will count as your own prep time.

4. I do not flow crossfire. If you want me to flow something brought up in cross, please extend them in later speeches.

5. I have some knowledge over this debate topic, but please do make sure you explain your arguments clearly.

6. I prefer Truth > Tech, but if your truth makes no sense, then I will not buy it.

7. Please weigh impacts and bring up voter issues in the final speeches.

8. I will provide a 10 second mercy rule after you have reached the speech limit. Note that I will not flow anything after that.

9. Have fun! I am looking forward to seeing you all! :D

Hey all,

I’m a UC Berkeley student studying Political Science and Cognitive Science with a minor in music. I’m a human rights activist, I'm obsessed with JJK and AOT, and I love Taylor Swift :D (bonus speaker points if you can make a reference to something I’m into)

TLDR; be a good sport, make sure you have impacts, don’t spread, signpost, have fun!

Experience/Not-so-subtle brag: I debated all 4 years in high school, primarily parli, with some pufo background. My partner and I were 2-time Parli Champions in our league (CSBR), and we’ve won the occasional invitational. We were ranked top 10 nationally for parli (NPDL). I’m a 3x national qualifier in World Schools Debate (Southern California Gold Team), breaking into the elim rounds all three years. As for speech, I did OI/DI/Imp/OO- I was 2nd place in the SoCal District for OO and qualified to the Nats for the fourth time.

General Judging:

• Don’t be rude/mean/etc etc. You can be an aggressive debater without being an a-hole

• Passion, sassiness, and aggressiveness is fine, as long as it does not become personal, demeaning, or condescending

• No sexism/homophobia/transphobia/racism/etc etc- this will guarantee you a loss and will tank your speaker points

• Ks/Theory: Unless it is explained ridiculously well, chances are, I will not understand it and if it muddies the debate, none of us will enjoy it (I would prefer if you don't run it lol)

• Please just debate the topic. And speaking of the topic, please pay attention to wording. While I enjoy creative and unique interpretations of the resolution, abusive interpretations or arguments will not look good for you.

• DEFINITIONS: abusive definitions (definitions that take all ground away from a side or are unreasonable given the resolution) will reflect poorly on you. On the other hand, abusive definitions need to be refuted or countered in the next speech- if you only bring up an abusive definition in the latter half of the debate when it came up in 1AC or 1NC, there will not be enough time to fully address the definition issue.

• Quality over quantity- make sure your arguments are well developed, with good warrants and impact. If you extend an argument, you MUST explain further than what's already been covered. Circle-y arguments are difficult to weigh. Particularly, arguments are not only "my opponent is not good" but "I am better." You should be proving to me that your arguments are more impactful!

• Off time roadmaps are helpful as long as you follow it. Please keep roadmaps under 30 seconds

• IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT!! The impact train doesn’t stop until you hit human suffering or death. However, you must LINK your impacts to be able to access them.

• Real world weighing (analyzing real political/humanitarian trends) tends to be more powerful and convincing

• I’m fine with fast speakers, but if you are spreading to the point of email chains, I will not be able to understand or flow. Signposting is a must. No signposting = :( PLEASE just make it easy for me to follow you and everything will be sunshine and rainbows I promise

• Just because I know jargon doesn’t mean I want to hear that for an hour straight (like, seriously).

• Voters are crystallizing, weighing, and world comparison if needed. No new arguments/evidence.

• In the words of Gina Park, talking pretty gets you far. Even if your content is not amazing, I will appreciate you a lot if you sound nice and present well. One thing that debaters who solely do debate (and stuff like extemp) generally lack is the dramatics and flair that makes a round interesting. Believe it or not, most people don't actually want to hear an hour of monotone argumentation! Some of the most fun debates I've ever been in are the ones where I reference Taylor Swift, claim that equality is bad (in like a fun silly way, not in a serious way), bring up WALL-E, and use quirky anecdotes. Channel your inner theater kid! Perform for the debate!

World Schools:

• Remember that your points are split 40%-40%-20% between content, style, and strategy

• Presentation is a HUGE part of WSD. Please make sure that you’re engaging with the judge (eye contact, body language). Terrible jokes and funny quips will carry you if you use them well.

• Cohesion and communication within the team is incredibly important for both style and strategy- please make sure that your team’s arguments are connected and does not contradict each other

• For obvious reasons, I will time each speaker. Going excessively overtime/over the grace period will reflect negatively in style points.

• Focus on the bigger picture- WSD should never be about individual 1-line arguments, but about the overall case and framing. The principle and practical should both be considered.

• If the motion is a prepped motion, I expect both teams to know what you're talking about- Blatantly incorrect claims will reflect poorly on your preparation and use of time before the round.

• Models need to be well flushed. I welcome counter models, as long as they are thorough and non-permable.

• If just defending the status quo, you need to explain either 1) The model does not have any solvency or 2) The model worsens the world. Not having a model when a model is needed (ex: in a “regrets” motion) can cost you significant points.

• WSD is not an evidence heavy debate, but for content points, evidence/sources makes your case much stronger, especially if it is a fact/truth prepped motion

• Using analogies, catchphrases, and themes across the 4 speeches boosts style and strategy- you are creating a narrative for your argument, and that narrative works best when weaved throughout the entire debate

• I will dock strategy points if off time roadmaps are given- that is again NSDA guidelines

• Use POIs strategically- ideally should be asking 3-4 POIs, but speakers should only answer 2… bombarding a speaker with POIs is not strategic. The quality of the question can only improve your points, but sometimes it’s necessary to propose a POI to disrupt the other team’s flow. Not taking any POIs can reflect poorly on you.

• BONUS style points if you’re funny or make relevant pop culture references (everyone likes an entertaining debate)

As someone who genuinely loved debating and still enjoys watching them, make it a clean round, and make it easy for me to judge. At the end of the day, debate is about the skills and friends you gain from it. Some of my current best friends were my debate rivals/opponents in high school.

Hopefully, one day you’re able to look back at the experience and remember good rounds. Don’t stress too much and have fun!!

I am a first-time parent judge with no experience with Speech and Debate. (my debater helped me write this paradigm)

Please do this:

• Signpost
• Make sure you have taglines for all your arguments and subpoints
• Please talk slowly, I cannot vote on any arguments that I do not understand so take a breathe when you need to.
• Only use your grace period to finish your point and not extend new arguments, you have a 15-second grace period.
• Use Roadmaps (off or on time)
• I will only take notes during your rebuttal speeches, so tell me exactly how and why you win, with weighing, voter issues, and/or a world v. world comparison.

Please don't:

• Assume I will buy your argument because it was mentioned in the debate, everything needs clear logic and reasoning for me to buy it
• Do not use any debate jargon and make sure to explain it to me if you really need to.
• I will drop you if you are rude or offensive to your opponents, don't name-call, be racist, sexist, etc.

Experience: he/him, 6 years BP, 5 years Canadian Parliamentary and 3 years of WSD, 3 year judging

No K's and no Theory, I will not vote on either.

I vote off of impact calc, tech > truth, spreading is discouraged, please sign post and make contentions clear.

BE RESPECTFUL