Tabroom.com

Rice University Classic

2024 — Houston, TX/US

NPDA Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Kyle Bligen Whitman College 5 rounds

Hanh My Do Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 6, 2024 at 3:31 PM CDT

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

paul ernster Hire 2 rounds

Steven Farias University of the Pacific 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:59 PM PDT

(Reviewed Jan. 2024) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):

TL;DR- I evaluate arguments which means I expect claims to be warranted and evidence to support the claim be true and reasonable. I think you are entitled to read whatever arguments you choose and I am confident in my ability to keep up intellectually with what you are trying to do, and if I cannot then I will admit why I was confused at the end. Beyond that, CTRL+F is your friend and whatever is (not) covered below I am happy to discuss my thoughts and how it can help you win the ballot.

Most debates I watch these days in parliamentary debate discuss structural and/or systemic violence both on the AFF and NEG. The second most common thing I see is theory of some sort. The best debates I see discuss these issues across the debate (i.e.- how does access to the debate implicate the way folks in the round acknowledge and interrogate structural and/or systemic violence). Debates that often end in frustration tend to silo arguments and retreat from counter-arguments in favor of concessions.

I think the AFF should defend a topical advocacy. This does not mean I believe the AFF MUST role play or defend the state structure of the status quo. I believe being creative in how we imagine what state structures can become can allow us to engage in what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Structures of oppression exist differently across cultures and eras if at all. To me this means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable and as such I think there are excellent justifications (although many in debate may end up half-measures) for why the AFF can be topical AND critically interrogate current political and economic systems.

I think NEG advocacies in parli should be unconditional as the concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. Theory and advocacies are distinct as theory is a debate about what the system should look like and advocacies are defensable changes to the status quo. Theory is distinct from T as theory is about how to debate and T is about the words in teh topic. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof has shifted. Kritik, performance, T, theory, framework, Disads/CP to non-topical AFFs, and Disads/CP to topical AFFs are all open to the NEG. However, I think that the opportunity to indict the AFF in the LOC is often overlooked and many NEG teams allow the AFF infinite offense by conceding case warrants and relying on implied clash.

I think that parli debate is a unique format that allows meaningful engagement. While the things above are beliefs I have about the burdens of the AFF and NEG, the only thing you MUST DO is defend a world view at the end of the debate and if you want to win, you ought be comparative in your impact analysis. Although everything above is essentially how I think you should debate, I recognize that you make choices on how YOU want to debate and I am interested in those choices and why YOU make them. If you have any questions, I have a lot more below and also am happy to answer any questions at sfarias@pacific.edu.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. In terms of theory I generally have a medium threshold for voting T/Spec except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. However, clever theory is great and generic CONDO Bad is meh. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually have a high propensity to solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.

Section 1: General Information-

While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE PROBABILTY MEANS MORE THAN MERELY CONCEDING AN ARGUMENT/LINK CHAIN.

I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips don’t ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say “I didn’t get that”. So please do your best to use words like “because” followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

Section 2: Specific Arguments

“The K”- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality/framework with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that K’s without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.

In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provided a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how I should perform that role will be ahead on Framework.

For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Please also provide a space for your competitors to engage/advocate with you. If they ask you to stop your position because arguments/rhetoric have turned the space explicitly violent then all folks should take it as a moment to reorient their engagement. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not.

I believe you should be able to read your argument, but not at the expense of others’ engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.

Topicality/Theory- I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competing definitions and a question of what debate we should be having and why that debate is better or worse than the debate offered by the AFF. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an AFF who is winning that the plan meets a definition that is good in some way (my understanding of reasonability), if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T.

In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized arguments to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win.

Counter Advocacies- Best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team. It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. ALTs, PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with so long as you defend the solvency of your advocacy. Theory can even be a counter advocacy if you choose to articulate it as such. You should do your best to not link to your own advocacy as in my mind, it makes the impacts of your argument inevitable.

With regard to permutations, if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the ALT/CP alone is insufficient and should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. I do not believe that every link is a disad to the permutation, you must prove it as such in the context of the permutation. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the ALT is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links in both instances as well.

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as I would when I was a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.

LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

Section 1 – General Information

Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 12 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 7 years A/DOF years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific)

General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. I think the AFF should find a way to be topical, but if you are not I then I am sure you will be ready to defend why you choose not to be. I think the NEG is entitled to read whatever they like but should answer the AC and should collapse in the NR. Failing to do one or both of these things means I am much less likely to vote for your strategy because of the primacy of the AFF and/or an inability to develop depth of argument in the NR.

As an academic familiar with critical theory across a host of topics (race, gender, "the state", etc.) feel free to read whatever you like on the AFF or NEG but I expect you to explain its application, not merely rely on the word salad that some of this evidence can use. I understand what is in the salad but you should be describing it with nuance and not expecting me to do that for you. The same is true for standards on theory, permutation arguments, solvency differentials to the CP, or the link story of an advantage or disad. I am willing to vote on any theory position that pertains to the topic (T) or how debates should happen (all other theory). This includes Inherency, or any stock issue, or rules based contestation.

In terms of impacts, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war, or other black swan events, and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.

Last--I do not think you need evidence for everything in the debate. Feel free to make intuitive arguments about the world and the way things operate. I do think its good if you have evidence for 80-90% of your arguments. I will also say that evidence on issues where it is usually lacking (like voters on theory or RVIs) will be weighted heavily if the only response back is "that's silly"

Section 2 – Specific Inquiries

1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?

I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debater’s lack of clarity you will say “clear” (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debater’s excessive speed, I expect you to say “speed.” In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to “report” me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.

2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you don’t find yourself voting for very often?

I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.

3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achievable at the end of the debate.

4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue

Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons to ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all theory arguments are voting issues.

5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?

Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.

6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months

Yes

7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?

I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.

8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?

No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.

9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?

You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way I am told to weigh them. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.

10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?

My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.

Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!

Gabriel Graville Whitman College 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 10, 2024 at 6:06 AM PDT

He/Him

2024 NPDA update: I haven't judged a whole lot of national level NPDA this year but in the majority of rounds I have teams have read some form of RVI on theory positions. I have a very high threshold for these arguments particularly when they are based on some form of time-skew or other procedural link story. In order to win these arguments in front of me I need some sort of parallel or higher framing argument for the RVI as well as impact weighing. In short, I honestly don't want to hear time-skew anymore. RVI's that pertain to other forms of abuse generated by the procedural, such as a team being racist, transphobic, homophobic, are functionally different that the aforementioned RVIs and probably operate as Independent Voting Issues.

Please read a trigger warning if you are reading potentially triggering material. This also goes for IE’s. I am more than happy to answer any questions about my paradigm before round.

I graduated from the University of Oregon in 2022. I spent all 4 years there competing in NPDA/NPTE style debate with my partner Alex. We did pretty well for ourselves and won the NPTE in 2022. Prior to that I did Oregon HS debate and a handful of IE’s.

I am very comfortable with faster, more technical forms of debate, however I was never the fastest flower and will certainly call slow and clear if I cannot understand a debater. I am similarly comfortable to more lay forms of debate. Please do what you would like to do in debate as long as it is not openly racist, misogynistic, transphobic, ableist, or violent towards members of the debate space.

I really like disads and kritiks with materially grounded actions as their alternative. Favorite argument is probably the internal link/impact turn. My threshold for theory greatly increases when the interpretation requires the opposing team to perform a specific action in order to meet. For example, actor specification theory requires a team take a particular action (ie specify their actor) in order to meet the interp while PICs bad theory only requires a team to not do something in order to meet the interp. You can obviously still win spec type arguments in front of me, I will just need a greater link story to justify voting on your impacts. I protect rebuttals but you should still call out new arguments.

While it is the judge’s job to evaluate the arguments given in round it is apparent to me in my experience that judge bias and intervention is inevitable due to indirect, implicit, or missing clash. While I will defer to arguments in the round whenever possible here’s where I will default absent argumentation otherwise.

Magnitude > Probability > Timeframe

Death is probably the biggest impact unless you specifically argue why something else outweighs it

Theory and Kritiks procedurally come before case because they discuss impacts within the debate space.

Fiat is just imagining that something happens so that the debate can be centered around the consequences of the action of the resolution rather than whether the action would happen in the first place.

Competing Interps > Reasonability

For CARD debate: I am looking for strong argumentation relying on both evidence and proper explanation of the implications of said evidence. Coming from an evidence-less format I generally prioritize how well evidence is leveraged to make an argument over the quality or form of the evidence itself. Further I am extremely compelled by comparative impact calculus which entails a comparison between magnitude, probability, and timeframe. CARD debate includes specific ordinances that preemptively answer questions left up to debaters in other formats. This means that theory and topicality operate on the same layer of the debate as case, conditionality is discouraged even for procedural arguments, and that procedurals rely on proven abuse opposed to potential abuse. This focuses the debate on the case level making it the starting point for my evaluation as a critic.

Angelica Guzman Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri August 16, 2024 at 5:29 AM PDT

Hello!

I competed in NPDA and LD for the University of the Pacific from 2020-2024. Now I am a graduate assistant coach for the University of the Pacific.

TLDR/Parli

I wasn’t that fast when I competed, but I can generally handle speed. A debate is much simpler for me to follow if counter-advocacies are unconditional. I don’t like frivolous theory, but I’ll evaluate it. I think the Affirmative should be topical, but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate untopical AFFs.

Parli Specific

AFF Cases

I prefer when AFFs defend a topical advocacy and have a lower threshold for voting on theory/framework against an AFF that didn’t defend the topic, but I will still evaluate and am willing to vote on AFFs that do not. AFFs that reject the topic need to spend more time explaining and justifying why they are not defending the topic.

Theory/Topicality

I’ll evaluate any theory/topicality read in the LOC, and if well explained and warranted will have a low threshold for voting on it. I have a higher threshold for theory read in the MG unless its condo is bad, which I am highly likely to vote on.

CP/Ks:

For the CP, I like them. If you run a pic, delay, or anything related to what may be perceived as an abusive CP I am willing to listen and vote on theory arguments claiming they are. I think if you run a CP, you must be able to solve the AFF otherwise, you have no reason to run a CP. I don’t like vague perms, but if I don’t understand how your CP solves the aff I’m likely to vote on the perm.

I probably don’t have a deep understanding of the lit your K is based on, but you can still read it. In the instance you decide to run a K, I would prefer a thesis. I need clear explanations of how the alt solves, otherwise I defer to my uncertainty in your alts ability to solve for the in or out of round harms you claim to solve for. For K’s, if I don’t understand your alt and its ability to solve, I am likely to vote on the perm if it is well explained.

Condo

I was never conditional in Parli when I competed and now, as a judge, I prefer unconditional advocacies. This doesn’t mean I will auto drop the team for being conditional, but I have a low threshold for voting on condo bad. I’ll still evaluate condo bad like any theory sheet and if the neg wins that sheet then they can be condo. If you read multiple conditional advocacies, the threshold for condo bad is much lower and I am very likely to vote on condo bad.

Speed

If you were or thought you were faster than me, then you probably were. This means I need you to be a little slower than your top speed if you want to make sure I get your args.

Disclose. Read what you want.

Email

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions at a_guzman15@u.pacific.edu.

Drew Hoffmaster Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 25, 2024 at 10:25 AM CDT

Short Version

Hey everybody, I'm back!

Been out of the circuit since Covid, and just now getting back into it.

Been judging primarily at Houston area (Rice University) tournaments after taking a year off upon graduation. Actively judged between 2017-2019, then real life and covid got in the way, so be mindful that I may not be up to date on all national trends in parli. Default to policy/net-bens but will listen to any framework. Theory usually comes first, and competing interps are default. DAs/CPs/Ks are all equally valid tools. Do the work for me in the neg block/PMR, and you're much more likely to win than if I have to work it out myself. Also, have exact texts of plans/CPs/interpretations/advocacies written out for evaluation (I will give leniency to teams having to answer theory on writing counter-interps).

Long Version

I was a 5-year debater at Texas Tech University, finishing my career with an 11th place finish at NPTE and a Quarterfinals finish at NPDA. After graduating, I have taken a job as a corrosion engineer. As such, I have not had much time to attend college debate tournaments, but I have been able to judge a few high school policy tournaments in the Houston area. I am not deeply in tune with current trends in parli (circa about 2017), as I only get to judge 1 or 2 tournaments a year, so keep that in mind when doing strikes/prefs.

Affs

I will listen to any aff you choose to read regardless of what the topic is. In my ideal world the aff would read a topical aff defending the implications of the fiated implementation of a specific plan text. That said, if this style of debate is not your preferred style, forget what I just said and do what you like to do. Performative/unique affs ought be encouraged and are good for the format. However, you should make every attempt to ensure that the negative team understands the aff. If it seems like you're saying nothing but a bunch of debate/academic jargon, and your opponents are having difficulty comprehending the aff, then this will be marked against you in speaker points and possibly the ballot if the negative makes it an issue in round. This ought not encourage a race to the bottom, but should instead encourage good-faith interaction between the teams. Also, please provide a written text for your advocacy if you have a stable text. Preferably write this out before the round.

Negative Theory (T, Spec, Must Take a Question, etc.)

Theory is a strategic tool and a good way to check abusive affs. For me, theory requires a clear, structured format consisting of an interpretation, a violation, standards, and voters. Proven abuse is not necessary at all, which will probably make my threshold for pulling the trigger on theory lower than most individuals. Instead, I will evaluate based on the offense/defense presented at the standards/voters level. A good we meet is terminal defense, and affs should feel free to go all in on a we meet if the neg mishandles it. SPEC in general is questionable but like anything else I will listen to it (I actually won a round at NPDA on spec, so I can't say anything). Both teams should take at least one question regarding their advocacy other than a request for a text (which both teams should provide written copies of regardless). Also, if you're reading a theory position, you should provide a written text of your interpretation. Counter-interps are preferably also written, but I understand how that can be difficult and thus deserve leniency. Finally, if you are going to go for theory, GO FOR THEORY in the last speech. Don't bring up other positions in the final speeches unless doing so in relation to the theory position.

Aff Theory

This is extremely useful for dealing with wonky/cheating negs. That said, the same standards that applied to negative theory apply to affirmative theory. Keep aff theory interps short as I will expect you to hand over a written copy of the text. RVIs are bad theory; if you want to read theory, go the full distance and read a theory shell. Theory after the MG is probably bad (MO/LOR/PMR). I will do all the work I can reasonably do to avoid voting on PMR theory, so if that's your PMR strat it better be a really good shell and the violation needs to be particularly egregious.

Disadvantages/Case

In my ideal world every neg would put out 2 disadvantages and a ton of case arguments, along with a counterplan or two (which should signal my thoughts on conditionality). Disadvantages should follow very clear stories, and have very defined directionality on both uniqueness and links. Case arguments don't need to be as fleshed out but remember, a case argument without uniqueness is beaten the same way a disad without uniqueness is beaten. Verbally structuring these arguments will help out immensely.

Counterplans

Please provide a text and describe exactly how you compete with the affirmative. Counterplans can be topical and don't have to be mutually exclusive. I strongly understand functional competition while I believe textual competition is nonsense unless you are explicitly critiquing some word/structure of the affirmative plan text. Counterplans should also explicitly describe how they solve the affirmative (if applicable) and how they avoid linking back to the neg arguments, even if it's as simple as "we do something completely different." You can read any type of counterplan you like, but you better have answers to theory.

Permutations

Perms do not need written texts, and in many instances perm: do both is reasonable shorthand. If the negative can prove that reading the two texts side by side makes the perm impossible/incoherent, I will probably drop the perm. When it comes to evaluating counterplans/permutations, I check whether the permutation avoids the links to the negative offense. If so, then I evaluate the aff vs the negative offense, and see if it outweighs. If not, then I evaluate only the negative offense. What this means is if you are running an unconditional counterplan and the perm is successful, you can still win the debate via your offense--you just have to actually weigh it against the aff, which loses all offense if their advantages are solved by your counterplan.

Conditionality

I default to the thought that conditionality is good. You can argue its bad and win, but generally going for theory brings debates closer to 50/50, so if you're winning somewhere else, you might wanna go there. As for dispositionality, I still have no clue what that means as there seems to be no universal definition. If you are going to say a CP/Alt is dispo, explain what that means (or better yet, just be condo and make everybody's lives easier).

Kritiks/Alternative Negatives

Pretty much everything I said in the above sections is applicable here. I will gladly listen to any position you decide to run. That said, please note that I am an engineering major that has been out of the community for a couple years, and thus received all of his critical education from debate. What this means is that I probably don't know all the lit you are talking about. I understand social justice kritiks pretty well and jive with them, along with more basic Ks including cap and whatnot. Postmodern Ks are pretty much a no-go for me unless you can ELI5 them. Name dropping is also not a warrant, you're going to have to do the work in parli. As far as how traditional affs can interact with critical negative positions, remember that the affirmative has its own epistemology/ontology/performance that is probably necessary for accomplishing/preventing the impacts of the aff. You may not get access to your impacts as they are, but if the negative can make broad sweeping claims about what they are able to accomplish, so should you.

Impact Calc

I evaluate impacts in terms of magnitude modified by timeframe and probability. Magnitude is obvious while timeframe is the second deciding factor, as sooner impacts of the same magnitude should be prioritized due to possible intervention later on. I evaluate probability a little differently than some might expect--it has nothing to do with the actual likelihood of an event occurring, but rather the amount of defense the other team can successfully argue. While this is how I normally view rounds, if you want me to seriously alter this, feel free to argue it in round and absent rebuttal from the other team I will go with however you want me to evaluate things.

As a note here: please, please, please signpost where you are cross applying arguments and how they apply. If you make me have to do implicit weighing/making connections/doing work myself after the LOR/PMR, you may not be happy with the decision.

Rebuttals

The PMR and LOR should be making the debate as small as possible, and do impact calc. The less work you do for me in weighing impacts/showing how you win, the harder it will be for you to win. If neither team does the work in the rebuttals, I end up looking at my flow forever, my decision may not be what you want, and everybody ends up sad.

Speed

I am fine with speed in theory. In practice, I do not know how fast I can flow parli anymore, though I figure I can handle most people going 50-75% speed. Having been out of practice for about 4 years, please forgive me if I'm a bit rough. I'll signal you however you like if I'm losing you, and will try my hardest to flow your speed. As for criticisms of speed, just answer them. If you lose the round on it, learn answers. Speed is probably good/inevitable, but should not be used as a tool of exclusion.

Points of Order

I will try my hardest to actually rule on these as it may affect the final strategy of the PMR. That said, I will also protect the negative by ruling out arguments as I go.

Annnnnnnnnnnnnd that's about it. Good luck everybody! Feel free to ask for questions before/after rounds, or contact me at dhhoffmaster@gmail.com

Jeannie Hunt University of Utah 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 17, 2024 at 8:11 AM MDT

TLDR: This is your round - do what you want, tell me how I should vote, and don't be mean.

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of intervention on my part. That means a couple of things:

You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I don't care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that criteria, make sure the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other. That framework is what I will follow, so please don't set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.

I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene. There are no specific arguments that I prefer over others. I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything.

I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want to be attached to the currency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to. If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out. This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run.

I am old, which means that I think the PMC is important. If you are not going to address it after the PMC, let me know so I don't have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well.

Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I don't have to abandon objectivity altogether.

Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement (like, go to the DA) is fine. Making an argument, and then having it repeated is not.

Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn't mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.

Speed is not a problem if it is clear, but never be used to exclude others from the round.

Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is really just you saying you think you should have won on that argument.

Because I don't want to intervene, I don't appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn't vote on new arguments. I won't. If you feel particularly abused in the round and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.

I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

Tristan Keene Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 8, 2024 at 7:25 PM EDT

hi everyone!

my name is tristan (she/her) and i competed in parli for uc berkeley for four years at the collegiate level. during that time, my partner (and best friend) brenna seiersen and i won four national championships.

june dense says it best: never worry about me auto-rejecting an argument because it's 'blippy' or 'frivolous', just make sure it's sufficiently weighed. i'm down for whatever, barring a few of the things listed below.

cowardice: i understand cheating has become somewhat of a norm in high school (and college) parli. if you feel the need to cheat, keep two things in mind. one, get good. two, i will be more than happy to intervene and drop you (and take any additional steps needed to ensure competitive integrity) if a rules violation occurs. note: this only applies in cases of copy-pasting prep or accessing the internet in round, not like you rejecting the res or being condo lol. i did not give myself carpal tunnel by hand writing every word of prep for you to decide to copy and paste.

trigger warnings: probably a good thing to read. if you forget to give one and get called out on it, just apologize and move on. i would prefer not to evaluate a tw collapse unless the instance is egregious.

speed: go as fast as you want, but please, give me pen time (or keyboard time, rather) when we are switching between sheets. i will slow or clear verbally as needed. i can hang.

theory: i default to competing interps and will vote on any sheet if won. however, i find the trend of frivolous theory vacuous and boring and, if you have a choice between spending two minutes reading tropicality or spending two minutes reading case-turns, i would prefer the latter. however, my commitment to non-intervention outweighs this stylistic preference.

condo: condo good. reading condo bad also good. if i have a bias here, im not aware of it.

kritiks: i probably don't have the best understanding of your lit base, but i feel comfortable enough evaluating most positions. throughout my career, my partner and i primarily read occultism, dual power, killjoy, some eco stuff, and some neolib early in our career.

aff ks: i don't mind if you reject. do what ya gotta do. if I have a bias re; aff-k vs fw-t, i am not aware of it.

and lastly, if lay debate is your thing, don't let this scare you. i will do my best to accommodate your style, just make it easy for me by telling me how i should vote and which impacts are the most important.

Brent Nicholson McKendree University 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 23, 2024 at 7:54 AM CDT

I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA, NFA-LD, and IPDA formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.

Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu

I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you don’t have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I don’t have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.

TLDR

I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.

The quick hits of things about my judging that you might want to know before the round:Specificity wins.

Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.
I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.
I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.
I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesn’t appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.
I don’t exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.
I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.
I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.
Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.
Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.
In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.
All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesn’t come up, but it can. Don’t say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly or vote against you.

General

Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophy’s guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).

I flow on a laptop in evidence-based formats (LD, CX, PF) and on paper in extemporaneous formats (NPDA, IPDA). If I don’t ask you to slow down, you’re fine – don’t worry about it. I don’t number arguments as I flow, so don’t expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.

One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the “pages” of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, “MAD checks” on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.

In theory debates, I’ve noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a “no condo” interp. Basically, if the aff says “you can’t do that because it is bad” and the neg says “it is not bad and, in fact, is good” I do not think the neg should have to say “yes, I can do that” (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think “some condo” interps instead of “all condo”).

I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But don’t use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.

I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.

A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if you’re neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.

NPDA

My philosophy has changed over time – especially in relation to NPDA as a format. I think you’d do well to read through this in detail if you feel like you already know me as a judge. I still want you to explore arguments you care about and are interested in, but there are new boundaries explained here that I feel are necessary to the maintenance and growth of this activity that I will not negotiate. Please, still advocate for your positions, but you may need to adapt your arguments to me more than you have in the past.

I’m going to start with the three biggest changes in my NPDA philosophy.

Debates need to slow down. To help enforce this rule, I am flowing on paper again. I will try to be proactive in calling speed issues early and often in rounds to help debaters who may be used to my previous threshold adapt to a slower speed threshold.
Affirmative teams must affirm the topic. If you “reject the topic” in the 1AC, I will vote negative on presumption. (This is explained in more detail below.)
NPDA should be a rigorous, extemporaneous debate format. I expect you to read new arguments that you wrote in prep that talk about the topic in some detail. Generics are a critical part of the prep process, but we should all be adapting our generics better to the specifics of each topic.

NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that author’s position or the argument you’ve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that you’re leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an “even if” argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call, and I’ll do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesn’t win evidence debates – the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.

Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds we’re in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We don’t just rely on someone else saying it – we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, let’s do that!

Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if you’ve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution. Be creative and adapt your arguments to the topic of the debate. Do not read the same, unmodified argument in every round.

Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs don’t always do that. I think “risk of solvency” only applies if I know what I’m risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff, CP, or alt does on my ballot to run that “risk” on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain “that’s a presumption trigger because…”.

I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I don’t see that contextualized well and is often just a “risk of solvency” type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.

*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a ‘we meet’ – so ‘aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive)’ is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesn’t work, read spec.

Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesn’t necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably don’t try to get me to judge kick, honestly.

I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between. At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that that I’ll intervene on T if you’ve attempted to affirm the topic; it just means you need better T answers if topics are released in advance of the tournament. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).

NFA-LD

I tend to think disclosure of affs (once you’ve read them) is good and almost necessary and that disclosure of negs is very kind, but not necessary. The more generic a neg position is, the more likely I am to want it disclosed, but I’ll never expect it to be disclosed. I won’t take a strong position on any of this – disclose what you want to disclose (or don’t disclose at all) and defend that practice if necessary.

Affirmatives should stake out specific ground in the 1AC and defend it throughout the round. I don’t care how you do this, whether it is a plan, an advocacy, a performance is up to you. I think that topical plan debate is often the easiest to access, but I don’t believe that makes it the only accessible form of debate or the only good form of debate. So, read the aff you want to read, but be prepared to defend it. Affirmative debaters can (and sometimes should) kick their advantage offense to go for offense on a neg position. I don’t see this enough, and I really wish it was more common in plan debates, especially.

Negatives should answer the aff. How you answer the aff is your business, but I like specific links for negative arguments. On case, I love a good impact turn, but I’ll settle for any offense. In terms of DA choice, I think you benefit from reading high magnitude impacts most of the time, because the aff likely outweighs systemic DAs or has systemic impacts of its own.

For criticisms, I just want to understand what is happening. Most of the time that’s not a problem, but don’t assume I’ve read your lit or understand the jargon. I would prefer if you can articulate your criticism in accessible language in CX. I tend to prefer a K with a material impact, but I can vote for impacts that are less material if they’re explained well and interact with the aff impact in a meaningful way.

Negative procedurals should be limited to topicality if possible. T isn’t a voting issue because of “rules”. It’s a voting issue because of how it impacts debates. I default to competing interps and don’t usually hear a good justification (or even definition) for reasonability. I will still weigh based on reasonability if it is explained and won.

Spec, speed bad, and norm-setting arguments (like disclosure) generally don’t appeal to me. I understand their importance in some strategies and sometimes they are required. If someone refuses to slow down, I understand the need to say speed is bad. But I don’t care about rules, I care about how people are being treated – so make speed debates be about that. Spec and norm-setting arguments should be about the impact on research practices, education, and fairness in rounds.

2AC/1AR theory is not my favorite. I want debates to be about the aff case and when the affirmative debater decides to introduce additional issues, that often takes away from discussion of the aff itself. I know sometimes people go too far, and you have to read condo or delay bad or whatever. That’s fine. But use your best judgement to avoid reading theory in unnecessary situations and when you do have to read theory, keep the debate about the aff if possible.

I expect clear interpretations and voting issues for theory shells. I’ve noticed that this is not always the case in the NFA-LD theory debates I’ve seen, and teams would benefit from a specific statement of what should and/or should not be allowed.

Negative debaters should prioritize impact framing and delineate a path to the ballot for themselves. I have seen quite a few debates where the NR gets bogged down in the line-by-line and the aff wins by virtue of contextualizing arguments just a bit. In your NRs and 2ARs, I’d like to see more comparative analysis and focus on what my ballot should say, rather than exclusively line-by-line. You still need to answer and account for arguments in the line-by-line, but absent a clear “mission statement” for your speech paired with necessary analysis, it is hard to vote for you. Aff debaters can’t go all big picture in the 2AR. You have to deal with the line-by-line. I can’t ignore the NR and let you give a 3-minute overview. Get short and sweet with your overview. Clarify your path to ballot and then execute that strategy on the flow.

IPDA

Most of the NPDA notes will tell you how I feel about extemporaneous debate formats. Here are some quick hits from my experiences with IPDA that might influence your decision-making.

1. If you read a value, you need a criterion. (The NSDA-LD section has more on this subject.)

2. I prefer more academically, and policy slanted topics, strike down accordingly.

3. Make a clear statement of why you should win. I prefer overviews to underviews and one or two sentence I win statements to a list of disconnected voting issues.

NSDA General

I’ve heard many things referred to as “cards” that are not cards. A card needs to be a direct quotation, read in part (marked by underlining and highlighting) with a citation and a tagline that explains that argument. Present it in this order: Tagline, Author/Year, Evidence. Referencing a study or article is not a “card.”

You should be reading cards in debates. And you should be prepared to share those cards with your opponents. If you’d like help learning how to cut evidence into cards and how to share those cards quickly with your opponents and judges, I’ll gladly walk you through the process – but there are many resources available to you outside of me so seek them out.

Seek out clash. Don’t say “my partner will present that later” or dodge questions. Find the debate and go to it. We’re here to answer each other’s arguments and learn from the process, so let’s do that.

Time yourselves and each other – you should keep track of your prep time and your opponent’s prep time and time every speech in the debate. This is a good habit that you need to build.

NSDA-LD

Values and value criteria are a weighing mechanism for evaluation of arguments. Winning the value debate matters because it changes how I view impacts in the round and prioritize them. I understand the idea of “upholding a value” as the end goal of an LD round, and I can buy into that as a way to win a round, too. However, if that’s what you do, I probably won’t vote for impacts outside of that framework. You should choose between (1) upholding a value as a virtue or good in itself or (2) winning impacts that you will frame using your value/criterion. Both are valid, but I am inclined toward the impact style (option 2) by default.

I tend to think of LD debates in four parts: Definitions, Value, Aff Contentions, and Neg Contentions. I think it makes sense to flow LD on three sheets: One for definitions and values, one for aff contentions, and one for neg contentions. That makes the clash in definitions and aff/neg value easier to isolate and prevents a lot of strange and usually unnecessary cross-applications. Thinking of negative values as “Counter Values” that answer the aff value makes a lot more sense to me. You don’t have to do this in your round or on your flow, but it should help you conceptualize how I think about these debates.

I have not judged many plan-focused rounds in NSDA-LD, but I’m open to that if that is your style or you want to experiment. If you do this, I’ll flow top of aff, advantages, and neg positions on separate sheets like I would in a policy debate, and you can ignore the stuff about values above.

I am open to the less traditional arguments available to you. I love to see the unique ways you can affirm or negate using different literature bases than just the core social contract and ethics grab-bag.

Public Forum

I don’t have a ton of specific notes for PF. Check out the general section for NSDA and feel free to ask questions.

I like when the aff team speaks first. It makes debates cleaner and encourages negative responsiveness to the aff. You don’t have to choose first if you’re aff and like speaking second. But keep it in mind and do what you will with that information.

I don’t flow crossfires. I pay attention, but you need to bring up relevant crossfire moments in your speech and explain why they matter for me vote for them or include them in my decisions.

Hunter Parrish UT Tyler 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 30, 2024 at 10:41 AM CDT

If you need to reach out, my email is hunterparrish460@gmail.com. The order is going to be high school CX, college parli, high school LD, and high school PF. As I judge more things, the list will get longer. I did CX for four years in high school and parli for three years in college. In CX, my highest achievement was octafinalist at UIL state and in parli, my highest achievement is second in the nation.

High School CX

I am tab. I will vote on any argument you make. It is your round and I am simply here to see how good you did.
Tech over truth.
I like to see teams that can collapse to their winning arguments. You should not be reading everything from the first constructive in the last constructive.
Please don't reread cards. I heard you the first time.
Framework is not negotiable. I need to know how you want me to vote. I need to know what impacts are the biggest. I need to know what to do, they did not tell me in tab room.
I'm now going to go over the different kinds of arguments with what I think about them.

A. Policy affs - 5/5 - The bread and butter of being aff. I don't have too many notes on what I want or expect. At its core, I think you should be identifying a problem and how you fix it. Some framing about why your problem is really bad never hurts. Remember, as the aff, this is your only offense, and therefore, you should be protecting it like the precious baby it is.

B. K affs - 5/5 - Sometimes the topic is problematic and you don't want to be associated with the state. That's OK, you can be untopical. My only prerequisite question is why are you untopical? If you have a good answer for that, then your k aff is welcome and will be evaluated fairly. This doesn't mean I won't vote on T, so make sure you are ready to defend that answer to that previous question.

C. Disads - 3/5 - I have nothing against the disad, but it can't win alone. You either need to prove the aff can't solve, outweigh the aff, or solve the aff through a CP. The disad alone is like a ship in the night, and guess what, it is passing other ships. With that, I don't think any negative policy strat is complete without it, it is truly a filler for the ages.

D. CP - 4/5 - I don't have anything against the CP, but I never really read it. I went straight from defending the squo in high school to being a radical k reader in college. With that, I am willing to vote on the CP and have no hesitation doing so if it is competitive, solves the aff, and avoids net benefit offense. With that, net benefits can be a form of competition. In regard to all CP theory, check out what I have to say about theory.

E. Theory - 5/5 - I love theory debates because they alleviate crucial burnout by giving debaters and judges the ability to hear something other than the topic again. With that, however, a theory argument is like any other argument in the sense that it has parts that can't be ignored or neglected. Too many debaters think it's ok to simply say "this is abusive" and think they deserve the round. I need you to create an interpretation, show a violation, give standards to defend your interpretation and give voters for me to care. Without this, you're just wasting time you could use to read more disads.

F. Topicality - 4/5 - It's just a theory. I'm voting it lower, not because I'm less likely to vote on it, or even that it is bad. I simply see too many teams decide that they don't have to do the work of voters, and that being untopical is simply enough. It is not. If the affirmative is hypothetically solving all poverty, I don't care if they cheated in a debate round. I need you to make me care, by saying why education and fairness are actually super cool.

G. Kritik - 4/5 - I like the kritik. I think more people should read the kritik. With that, you have to know how to run a kritik and what your kritik is about. If you don't know the four parts AND you don't know at least the basic level of your kritik literature, don't do it. Otherwise, I'm really cool with the kritik.

College Parli

1. I am tab. I will vote on any argument you make, but warrant analysis is where these arguments should really be weighed.

2. Tech over truth.

3. Framework and collapsing to a win condition is not an option. I need to know how to vote and I need to know what a vote for either side actually means, not options for what it means.

4. I think I'm ok with speed. 7 or 8 out of 10.

5. I'm now going to go over the different kinds of arguments and what I think about them.

A. Policy affs 5/5 - I think policy affs are good. I don't have a lot of notes on them. Usually, framing in the PMC, be it impact framing or round framing, helps me know what the aff is supposed to be doing for me.

B. K affs 4/5 - Slight preference for policy, but I'll vote on them no doubt. I read them more than policy affs myself. I just think that in a world with a new topic each round, you have to have a good reason to read your k aff. If you don't have strong topic links or links to standard debate, then that TVA is going to be fire against you.

C. Disads 2/5 - I don't hate disads, but they are useless on their own. Case defense, impact framing, or a counterplan is required to make them work. I need to know the aff doesn't solve, your impacts are larger, or that you can solve the aff, otherwise I just have to pick the impacts I like.

D. Counterplans 5/5 - Really cool way to create advocacies with direct competition to the policy aff. Needs a net benefit.

E. Kritik 5/5 - Negative kritik is a great way to question the aff.

F. Theory 5/5 - Meta debate is fun and I feel comfortable analyzing it. Frivolous theories aren't great, but the staples (condo, be topical, multi-actor fiat, spec, etc.) make great debate when done right. Make sure you have standards and voters, they are not the same.

G. Topicality 3/5 - I don't dislike it, but in an event where only half the community reads the topic, someone who is getting there deserves some leeway.

6. Based on what I've been told in round, I will paradigmatically vote against any white debater who reads afropessimism. - Thanks Arjun!

Bryce Piotrowski McKendree University 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 1:09 PM CDT

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic.

My paradigm is geared more towards national circuit style Public Forum, because that's what I'm judging most often. I have notes on other events towards the bottom, but everything in my paradigm generally applies to everything I judge.

General Information:

he/him

I am conflicted against the following schools: Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI). I am separately conflicted against Jason Zhao from Strake Jesuit - he is a former Seven Lakes competitor.

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I now coach and judge every event throughout the season across tournaments that align with UIL, TFA, TOC and NSDA norms and expectations. I occasionally go back to NPDA, too. I have great respect for all formats and styles of speech and debate across the ideological and stylistic spectrum. I try to meet competitors where they are when I judge.

I spend more time every year in tab rooms and doing administrative work rather than judging and coaching. I stay as active as I can, but I can feel myself slowly becoming a dinosaur.

Email Chains:

Yes.

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail.com.

Add one of the following emails to the chain if you're in an event where email chains are expected:

sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com -- PF

sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com -- LD

sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com -- Policy

The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

If you're using the Tabroom doc share/etc, that's also fine, just tell me when I get to the round.

How I decide rounds:

I am not ideologically opposed to any position you want to stake out, provided that you have a) put in work before the tournament to research your position and b) embrace clash with your opponents, regardless of what your position is.

I would prefer to judge a small but deep debate about the resolution or desirability of a topical plan.

My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. There is no grace period of any length. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". The sooner that you realize that they are two sides of the same coin, the faster you’ll get better at debate. Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed and technical skill. I have voted for patently false arguments before and no doubt will again. However, you will have a more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. Between two evenly matched teams on a technical level, I am far more likely to vote for the team that has done better research and has more “true” arguments than a team reading arguments that are poorly researched and constructed. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot, because debaters are more persuasive when they make good arguments.

I will not vote for arguments that I cannot explain back to both teams during my RFD – whether that be because a) they did not make sense when presented in the round, b) they were not clearly signposted or articulated by the team introducing that argument, or (often) c) both.

Most debate rounds are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, or a couple of sentences that one debater said. Spending more time identifying and comparing the most significant arguments in the debate will probably improve your odds of winning my ballot.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5. My speaker points are roughly normally distributed but slightly skewed left from that mean between 26 and 30.

Critical arguments:

Theoretically, I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter.

Practically, however, especially in PF or LD, I often think these arguments struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of the short speech times of these events. If you don’t care much either way, I’d lean towards you picking strategies that lean more towards the policy than the K side of the spectrum, especially in PF or LD.

Additionally, I find that many teams (particularly in PF) choose to employ these strategies as an attempt to avoid clash or obfuscate the debate to the point of unintelligibility. These debaters generally rely on use of jargon and a pompous air of superiority rather than warrants and impacts to win the debate. I dislike this practice. If you cannot explain a link or how voting for you resolves the impact that you have identified, I'm not going to vote for you regardless of how strenuously you said "epistemology first" or "they drop that we're the root cause of violence" or "fiat isn't real" - these are claims, not complete arguments.

I am not a good judge for strategies that ignore the topic entirely. I am an even worse judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense, and a terrible judge for arguments that debate is unequivocally bad. I generally do not think that these strategies solve an impact or outweigh disadvantages to their method. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

It's boring.

I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad. Good is good enough - I don't want to hear disclosure theory if your opponents forgot to disclose last round after disclosing the past 60 in a row. Similarly, I don't want to hear paraphrasing theory or a "clipping IVI" if your opponents miss a sentence in the middle of a card. Presume that your opponents are operating in good faith and that we're all here to have a good time.

If you’re reading some kind of procedural that is specific to the current topic (e.g., Topicality, specification shells with carded evidence, etc.), I’ll probably be more interested in evaluating your position. In PF, zero teams have ever read such a position in front of me.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory (defined as procedural arguments with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution), trigger warning/content warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position, assuming the abuse story is as silly as I think many of them are.

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

LD/Policy:

I don't judge these events as often as PF and I am very rarely in the judge pool at a TOC bid tournament in these events. Please don't read PF as "this man is an idiot". Everything from above applies. I am agnostic on almost all theoretical claims made in LD/CX rounds (e.g., 1AR theory in LD, conditionality, etc.). Frivolous theory and tricks are still silly.

You'll probably want to start and stay slower than the average national circuit judge. I need a little bit to get warmed up to your speed, and I'm out of practice enough that I probably can't get to your top speed. I won't look at the document to fill in my flow - only to evaluate disagreements over what evidence says that are initiated by the debaters in the round.

I'm going to be most comfortable in the back of a round where the aff reads a topical plan. I'm not ideologically against any style of debate, but I will have less experience evaluating these arguments in this context compared to somebody judging these events more frequently, which will likely harm the affirmative more than the negative in rounds where the aff does not defend the topic in a reasonably predictable way. Fine to vote on topicality, T-FW, or other similar positions.

I find rounds between two criticisms often difficult to resolve - isolating an impact external to your opponents' or explaining how you solve an impact(s) better than your opponents goes a long way.

Read good evidence. Evidence quality matters a lot to me. Read more parts of good evidence rather than blips of lots of bad evidence. The more specific you are when warranting arguments and doing impact calculus, the more likely I am to vote for you.

I generally think about debates in terms of which side solves the most significant impact - so when making a decision, I start on the impact/weighing/framework level of the debate and generally work backwards from there.

Topicality is generally a question of limits/ground as an internal link to fairness and education.

The further you get from a clear in-round abuse story on theory, the less likely I am to vote on theory. This is especially true in LD.

Congress:

Actively participate and use good evidence to engage in the most clash that you possibly can. Where in the cycle you speak does not matter to me nearly as much as whether you advanced debate on the item on the floor - though, in my experience, most competitors in Congress are best at giving speeches that are earlier rather than later, because most competitors seem more uncomfortable or less skilled engaging in direct refutation during the round and grouping arguments later on in the debate. The PO will start as my 5 and go up or down depending on how effectively they facilitate debate and how good or bad debaters in the chamber are. Competitors that ask more questions tend to be more engaged in the debate, and therefore are more likely to rank well (though pure quantity of questions asked does not matter to me). Compared to other judges, prioritize content over delivery, though both matter.

Speech/Interp:

You do you. If you've put in a lot of work to get your piece ready for competition, you'll probably do well in front of me. I tend to look more at technical execution and how well-practiced you are rather than big picture things like how your piece made me feel. I come from a debate background, which means I'm less concerned in finding your truth, telling your story, or authenticity than I am excellent technical execution, especially compared to people who more regularly judge (and are more qualified to judge) these events or an average parent.

Extemp:

Everything above, but you really do need to answer the question that is written. You aren't giving a speech about the idea of the question, or the topic area of the question: you need to answer the question. I probably want you to give me more context around the question in the introduction compared to other judges, and each body point should link back to your thesis statement. Compared to other judges, prioritize content over delivery, though both matter.

Other/Misc:

I am Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota with Christian Vasquez, Assistant Director at the Blake School. If you do high school PF and you want to come to PFBC, let me know. Last year, we were able to offer ~$50,000 in financial assistance to make sure that everyone that wanted to attend PFBC could.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

I strongly believe that every debater and coach is partially a product of their environment. If you're at the bottom of this paradigm, please make sure that you take some time to express gratitude to anybody who has shaped your career.

Ashton Poindexter University of Utah 5 rounds

Adeja Powell Mercer University 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 15, 2024 at 6:45 AM CDT

If you're reading this, that's already a good start. You should continue to do so until there are no words left. I competed in parli for ~5 years at McKendree University, and did 4 years of high school LD before that. My partner and I won the 2020 NPDA. I've coached both NPDA and IPDA at McKendree University, San Diego State University, and currently coach at Mercer University and Denison University. All of these things mostly tell you nothing about my thoughts on debate, but they should tell you that I have quite a lot of them. I'll do my best to keep it brief here.

My thoughts on debate have changed a lot since my time as a competitor and my paradigm is the best way to find that out - your coaches/fellow teammates/others who knew me as a debater are likely not going to give you an accurate run down of who I am as a judge, so it's good that you're reading this.

I really do try to be as tabula rasa as possible when I judge. I don't have a preference for any type of argument and feel that I am a good judge for almost any strategy. I'm actually a sucker for a big stick aff vs a wide LOC. T, K, DA/CP LOCs with a clean MO collapse are my favorite debates to watch. I like K debate - but I like case debate even more to be honest. I'm highly critical of most K teams because I'm not generally moved by Ks that frankenstein literature together and aren't grounded in actual scholarly work. To me, this is what makes the K effective because it acts as a bridge between debate and the larger academic scholarship that it exists within. I also don't think that the K is some special form of argument that on face goes against "technical" forms of debate. I think the K is the most technical form of debate and I evaluate it as such, so it is likely harder to win a K debate in front of me. I just have a really high standard when it comes to these arguments.

Some specifics you might want to know:

NPDA

I think Condo is good, so Condo Bad debates would have to be very technically deep and well-executed for me to vote most of the time. I haven't seen one of these debates go well in a while (although I would love to). I also think reading a one-off unconditional strat in the LOC is pretty baller, too.
You can't win on the aff without going for the aff. I feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but it does implicate how I evaluate RVIs on theory or independent voters in the PMR. Most of the time, arguments that are reasons to vote aff that don't consist of actually going for the aff are probably things that shouldn't be happening in-round anyway, and you can trust me as a judge to punish teams accordingly without having to hail mary your entire round on them. This also means I vote neg on presumption - and I have been known to do this even if the negative doesn't tell me to. It's the one job the aff has and it is usually pretty clear on the flow when the aff hasn't done that. It also brings me joy to vote neg on presumption, so don't be afraid to throw the ol presumption block into your neg speeches. And no, presumption never flows aff and no one ever has or likely ever will be able to explain this argument to me in a way that makes any sense.
Topicality is a question of the words in the plan text, not the solvency of the aff. Idk man, I think we all have forgotten how T works. If you're gonna collapse to topicality in the MO please make sure the aff actually violates your interpretation on a textual level. I don't know what "the spirit of the interp" means and I don't think you all do, either.
I like theory debates. I like good theory debates more. Nothing wrong with reading it in the LOC and kicking out of it in the MO - but if the debate is gonna come down to theory just know this is a highly technical collapse to pull off as far as I'm concerned.
I take my role as a judge and arbiter in this activity very seriously, and the privilege that comes with that position means not putting the onus on the debaters to call out problematic behavior before I vote for it. I just think that's my responsibility and I don't really care about discourse claiming that my only job as a judge is to vote for the arguments in round. If you do or say something messed up, I feel pretty alright about using the ballot to show my distaste for that, even if you otherwise won the technical flow of the debate. If you wanna be able to get away with problematic behavior, please strike me accordingly I guess.
I like jokes and debates that are fun. You can still have fun while going for things like Anti-Blackness - I did. If you have a silly or whacky argument you've always wanted to read I'm the judge to do it in front of. I don't like feeling like the weight of the world rests on my decision cause everyone came in all intense. I'm literally just a little guy .-.
I don't give away free speaker points and if you ask for them don't go to tab about that 25 I gave you instead. I think it's disrespectful to all the national champion speakers in this activity to suggest that you deserve a 30 for no reason other than you wrote it into your shell as an argument. Speaker awards should be coveted and difficult to achieve in my opinion.
As far as speaker points, my average is somewhere around a 28.2 - I consider a 27.7 a "bare-minimum you did the thing" speech and a 27 is my floor. If I give you below a 27 you did something pretty bad/mean/not okay and the points I give you is indicative of my disapproval. I almost never give anything higher than a 29.7 unless it is well deserved. I don't think I have ever given a 30 - and if I have I know exactly who I gave it to (and they are a national champion speaker).
MG theory is fine, but the more sheets of paper you add into the debate the more grumpy I will be. I also think the only legitimate MG theory is condo bad, CP theory, and speed (sometimes. I have an incredibly high threshold for this argument and "they went faster than I wanted them to" does not meet that threshold).
My flow is not as tight as it used to be. This might be me being hard on myself or maybe its transitioning from paper to a laptop but please pause before sheets of paper so I don't lose you. This is a mark of a good speaker to me anyway - if you can't afford to pause for 5 seconds between positions then you need to read less/shorter arguments or you need to get faster. Either way, don't punish the rest of us.
I'll give a lot of feedback because I think that's my value as a judge. I don't care if the tournament is behind, no one benefits from a 10-second RFD. If it's that serious and I really don't have time to share my thoughts please come see me after because I will remember your debate and I will be happy to give feedback.
I like really deep and complex warrants and warrant comparison. An argument consists of both a claim and a warrant - so we should probably address those throughout the debate. A heg debate where the whole thing is "heg is good, I promise" v "heg is bad, we all know this" do not spark joy.
Telling me to extend a conceded argument is not enough and I will not do that work for you. To properly extend an argument it should be re-articulated in the larger context of the debate at the point of the extension. For instance, extending a climate change impact probably also means explaining why that matters in the context of the neg strat, even if there wasn't an explicit response to the impact from the neg. If you extend an argument that I still think is implicated by some other argument on another sheet of paper then that will factor into my decision.
I don't lean one way or another automatically when it comes to K Affs v Framework. I like K affs that do the work to explain why you get to reject the topic/defend your advocacy/etc. "The topic is vaguely bad/unethical/etc." is not enough - topics are normative statements and nothing more and it's possible to have a good defense of a bad topic. I like framework debates that engage with the K Aff in a meaningful way and are technically deep. I don't like debaters that run away from what makes them uncomfortable. I won a lot of debates going for K Affs. I won a lot of debates going for framework, too. So don't count on my ideological support to make a decision in your favor.

Not sure I have anything else. I'd add a recipe or poem or something here but I actually think my paradigm should be useful so I'll spare you. I really really like debate - when I said "burn it down" all those times I really did mean it heuristically (despite what others who have not actually read a single piece of afropessimist literature in their life might tell you). So, get out of this activity what you want - it's not my job to tell you what arguments to read. Just make it fun for me by doing whatever it is you do well.

IPDA

I didn't compete in IPDA, but I think it's a super cool format. That said, if you know I'm gonna be in the back of your room you might be advantaged by choosing one of the policy topics. That's just the debate that I will be best at evaluating. That said, I did compete in LD and I do coach IPDA so I feel comfortable evaluating other types of topics - but I will still see things similarly to parli on a technical level.

If you're gonna take the time to offer definitions then make them useful and strategic. Words can and do mean a lot of different things in a lot of different contexts so this portion of the debate can end up being really meaningful.
Case construction is really important and I think this is where most debates are lacking for me in this format. I need a highly warranted argument that builds on itself and culminates in an impact that I can vote on. A bunch of unrelated claims with shaky warrants make it harder to make a decision.
I don't mind speed at all in this format and will evaluate speed debates exactly as I do in NPDA. "They went faster than I wanted them to" is not enough. Maybe you went slower than they wanted you to. The debate has to be far more in depth than this to sway me in one direction or the other.
I mostly evaluate IPDA similarly to NPDA so it might be beneficial to read my paradigm for that as well. Ks are cool. Case debate is slightly more cool most of the time, unless you're really good at the K. I don't like excessive MG theory and if you don't collapse as the negative I will be very upset. Any other specifics you might want to ask me about before the round.

Joe Provencher UT Tyler 3 rounds

Mason Remaley William Jewell College 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 29, 2024 at 9:46 AM CDT

Tab, do whatever you do best. I do not have any categorical prohibitions on any types of arguments. While debating I mostly read the K (Cap, Psychoanalysis, Queerness, Schmitt, Heidegger, Biopolitics, etc.) with T and heg as secondary strategies.

Impact comparison is incredibly important for my ballot. Debate is a game of world comparison, for instance if the debate comes down to an aff vs a disad, I will ask myself if the world of the aff or the world of the status quo is net beneficial. This is what it means to weigh impacts. My default impact framing mechanism is Util. If you present an alternative impact framing mechanism tell me how it impacts my evaluation.

Interps must be textually competitive, there is no spirit of the T. For instance, if your interp is "the aff must spec their agent of action." I will vote on a we meet if the aff specs it at some point in the round. So, a better interp would be "the aff must spec their agent of action in the pmc."

T and theory require explicit interps,

If you are going for a non-extinction death impact under a util framing (which is my default if you dont present me with an alternative) please quantify your impacts.

I have very ambivalent feelings about MG theory. The absences of backside rebuttals makes it structurally abusive but on the other hand without it there is not way to check back for neg abuse. My attitude can be summarized thusly: "lets not!"

Speed is not an issue

I seek to minimize judge intervention. Many debate that I judge often miss the forest for the trees, the entire debate becomes a show line by line tit for tat responses without either team pulling across a warrant that is predictive of the opponents arguments nor taking a step back and establishing the stakes of these line by line attacks as it relates to the substance of the debate. Please do predictive comparisons.

Theory defaults to common issues: Condo good, don't need to spec, speed good, cx is binding, presumption goes neg.

Fiat is required for any negative argument that does not defend the status quo.

I did policy debate in High School and was the 2018 4A CX state champion. I did parli at UT Tyler and was a two time NPTE finalist and a one time NPDA finalist. I currently coach parli at William Jewell College.
masonaremaley@gmail.com

Maximus Renteria Rice University 5 rounds

Brenna Seiersen Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 30, 2024 at 2:30 PM EDT

Hi y’all, I’m Brenna (she/her). Former PDAB debater, current coach for PDAB and Campolindo High School. I won the 2023 and 2024 NPDA and NPTE championships with my partner, Tristan Keene. I think that judges should do their best to be unbiased adjudicators, and I will try to do just that. However, I’m not going to pretend that I don’t have *some* preconceived biases and opinions, so it’s probably best I make those known. Thus, this paradigm. Some paradigms I like include: June Dense, Tristan Keene, Adeja Powell, and Will White.

TLDR: I exist at the mercy of the flow. I will not fill in gaps for you no matter how small. My preferences will not decide how I evaluate, only how happy I will be after round.

General things about Brenna:

I default to the flow and will not intervene UNLESS there is bigotry occurring in the round. This means that if you continue reading this paradigm and find out I don't really like your favorite thing to read, you can still read it. I'll evaluate it. But I won't have fun.
If I have a preference towards evaluating case, K or theory debates, I'm not aware of it.
27 is usually my absolute minimum for speaks, I'll only give you less than 27 if you are super mean or problematic. I eval not according to speaking ability but according to execution of strategy.
Please collapse. For the love of god, collapse.
Please interact with your opponents' arguments. Implied clash is gross.
Shadow extensions are new arguments
I stop flowing the second the timer goes off.
i am a hard ass on cheating. i dont care if everyone does it, if u do it in front of me i will do something about it.
I will probably take a long time to make my decision, sorry (see: i exist at the mercy of the flow)
Please be nice!

Speed:

I can hang, and when I can’t I will call slow/clear. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed and do give pen time. I'm okay with debaters calling slow on their opponents as many times as they need, and I'd really prefer if the debate was accessible. I really REALLY don't want to vote on speed T, but I guess I will if I have to...

Case debate:

Probably the type of debate I am the most familiar with! It’s good. I like it. Terminalize your impacts and do impact calculus. I don't really have any notable preferences for case debate except for the following.

General note:

If there is such thing as a uniqueness hack, I am one. I find that most people do not know how to properly write uniqueness or utilize it in debate, which means that if you do, I will be very happy! Winning global uniqueness as an overview to your collapse is a likely way to win my ballot. Uniqueness controls the directionality of the link!

Aff:

It is the job of the MG and the PMR to extend the aff beyond just the statement: "extend the aff". I do not implicitly grant the affirmative team the positions read in the PMC just by virtue of them being read in the PMC. Again, shadow extensions are new arguments.

I read soft left aff's a lot early in my career, and have come to view them as boring and untrue. Either reject the res or embrace the fact that you're defending the state.

Link turns:

Turns are miniature disads, they require uniqueness and an impact.

CPs:

I like all except for delay. If you read delay I think you're a bad person.

I think PiC's are fine and super duper justifiable especially if the aff is not a whole law res. I'll vote on PiC's bad, so like... win on the flow i guess?

Condo is good. Condo bad theory is fine. PMR collapses to MG theory have gotten boring to me, but I’ll still vote on ‘em.

Kritiks:

I would say my partner and I have read the K plenty, but are not K debaters by any means. The lit I would say I'm familiar with is: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, kritiks of rationalism and western epistemology, Eco, fem killjoy, Han Pu Ri, Lacan, Foucault, and bojack horseman. If ur K isn't on this list, that's chill, I would love to learn something new from you!

Please have a really clear thesis and solvency explanation, and I mean clear beyond just the PMC/LOC (ie, please actually know what your K is before you read it, I'm sorry but I will be annoyed if you're reading a K you can't explain past the shell itself). K links should be specific to the aff. Other than that, go buck wild!

Have specific links please, and pleaseeee make sure your alt solves your impacts. that means if you reject fiat, your impacts should be in round/rhetorical/epistemological. if ur k solves for climate change than probably just embrace the object fiat.

Aff K's: Down! I want more than just frame outs in response to Framework T, and keep K v K debate clean PLEASE bc it's so easy for everyone involved to get lost in the sauce.

Theory:

A good T collapse is probably my favorite thing to watch. I am willing to vote on potential abuse on T if you tell me why I should, and I will resort to competing interpretations if no one tells me otherwise.

I guess I'm kinda trad insofar as I would really just prefer to watch rounds where theory is limited to T, spec (a,e,f), PICs bad, or condo bad. I'll vote on other things, but I won't have as much fun.

I will buy a T interp that is based on any PMC offense, even if it's not a matter of the plan text (hot take!)

I think the proliferation of "frivolous theory" is a problem (in high school parli), but again, I really really really resort to the flow, and I think it is possible to keep intervention at a 0 on theory specifically. So if you execute "interp: debaters must not wear shoes" or the like perfectly, i will roll my eyes and sign the ballot for you.

My threshold on voting for RVI's is incredibly incredibly high. I think this is due to the fact that I have never seen a well warranted or executed RVI collapse. Prove me wrong.

Tricks:

I think an argument is a claim, a warrant and an implication. Absent that, I'm hesitant to vote on an argument. Take that as you will.

Point-of-order's:

I protect, but call still, please.

I think that about covers it. Good luck, have fun!

Vasile Stanescu Mercer University 3 rounds

Fiker Tesfaye Mercer University 5 rounds

Please, I beg, read the things I write here. I didn't write it for no reason.

I'm Fiker (pronounced like sticker). She/her/hers. I debated a bit in high school which is mostly unimportant, and then did four years (2015-2019) at Texas Tech University. I (and my partner) won the NRR and I won all 3 national top speaker awards in 2019. I judged and graduate-assistant coached for TTU in my masters (graduated 2021) and was acting Director for a year. I then spent a year as the Director of Debate at Grapevine High School. I now am the Associate Director of Debate at Mercer University. So it goes.

I generally think debate is a game, but a useful and important one. It may not be "fiat" but it does influence the real world by how we exist inside of it. Let's not forget we're human beings. Read what you want, I certainly did. However, I do not intend on imposing my own ideals onto debaters, so please have whatever round you want so long as we respect one another as humans. Speed isn't usually an issue but if we're blazing, let me know so I can use paper and not my laptop. 90% of debaters lose rounds in front of me because they have not read the specifics of my paradigm and how I tend to come down on questions of evaluation, so don’t let that be you, too. I don’t understand presumption most likely. Not something you want to stake your round.

Things to keep in mind: My favorite arguments are well warranted critical arguments that I can actually learn and grow from; also, Japan re-arm. I like to do as little work as possible when it comes to making decisions on the flow so please be incredibly explicit when making claims as I will not fill in arguments not being made in the round. Impact calculus is essential. However many warrants you have, double it. Condo is good, but don't test the decently sturdy limits. I don't really get presumption and may not be in your best interest to stake the round on it. Thought experiments aren't real. Jokes are fun. 9/10 the MG theory is not worth it. I will only evaluate what you tell me to. If I have not been given a way to evaluate arguments, everything becomes flow centric. This will not work out for you if things become a long chain of arguments as I will just default to whatever the most convincing and well-fleshed out argument is otherwise with no other weighing mechanism. Saying words is NOT the same thing as making an argument. I need to know either 1) what that means for the sake of the round/impact of the round, 2) how this helps me to evaluate/interpret other arguments or, 3) needs to be explicit enough to do all that in the nature of saying the argument. Cool you said it, but what am I supposed to do with it now?

Affs: Read them and be very well warranted within them. Pull from the aff throughout the debate as I feel this is one of the least utilized forms of offense in the round. K affs are fine (I'm a big fan) just make sure the things you say make sense and do something. I think because I have read a lot of Ks in my time that people think I will vote them up regardless, which is not true. I like offense and warrants and I like not doing work so whoever allows the most of that will be in the better spot regardless. Read case against the aff. Be clear and read texts twice.

DA/CP: Also read these. They need to be complete and fleshed out with good warrants and net benefits where they need to be. Warrant explicitness are your best friend. CPs should come with written texts, imo. I would say I have a slightly higher than average threshold for CP theory but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate it if it is read and defended well (just remember MG theory isn't always worth it if you can just win the substantive).

Theory: I like this and my threshold is pretty equal to substance if run well, but I needneedneed good structure. Interpretations are key, please slow down and repeat them. Now, I don't need several sheets of theory, MG theory, overly high-level theory, and certainly not MO and later theory. Keep it at home. Have voters. Defend them. Competing interpretations is based on the way that the interpretations are being upheld through the resolution of the standards but standards alone do not win without a competitive interpretation. Theory is one shot kill to say both please don’t go hard for the substantive as a backup just go for theory or don’t and don’t go for theory if there’s no proven abuse or if you’re not explaining the abuse in clear detail. In other words, what is the violation AND why is that violation bad?

Ks: I love them, but I don't vote on nothing. Framework needs to be strong or it needs to not bog down the real parts of the argument. Links need to link..... please (generics won't save you)......Alt needs to make sense, repeat them twice for me, and if they're long, I'd like to be told in flex or given a copy. Even if I know your literature, I am not debating. Please do the work for me in round. Identity arguments are fine, do as you please just don't be offensive or overly satirical about real violence. You must still win the actual debate and make the actual arguments for me to vote. This runs both ways, so anyone reading the K should do so if you want but if this is your winning strategy then make sure I know why and am not filling anything in for you where you believe I should be able to. “Use of the state” is a link of omission at best. Not offense alone. You need external reason and if your “use of the state specifically” is just repetition of all the things the state either has done or could do is not enough of a link to prove in the context of the round. How is the METHOD uniquely causing this issue?

Any other questions about my paradigm or my opinions/feelings about debate can be directed to me by email at fikertesfaye15@gmail.com

Have your debate. Live your life. Yee, and dare I say it, haw.

Baker Weilert-Pekar Whitman College 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 11:37 PM PDT

Take what you will from the comments below, and don’t hesitate to ask for clarification.

Pronouns:

He/Him/They/Them

Positions:

Procedurals/Theory: I am a big fan T/Specs/Theory type arguments, but rarely see teams collapsing to these positions (which I think is a necessary strategic decision to win these types of arguments in front of me). As for types of specs I’m less/more sympathetic to: I don’t find over-spec or under-spec particularly compelling arguments (point of clarification: by under/over spec I mean blanket spec positions not the individual specs that would fall under these categories such as aspec fspec espec etc.) although I am willing to listen/vote on over/under spec. I do really like topicality (as long as you aren’t running 5 of them and simply just cross-applying the standards and voters without new articulation of how those standards/voters function in conjunction with your different interpretations). I also think that conditionality is a great/true argument, but only in particular scenarios. I am far more sympathetic to conditionality arguments if there are multiple advocacies that cause the affirmative to double-turn themselves (meaning don’t run condo just to run condo, run it because you think there is actually a strategic advantage being leveraged by the other team). I prefer articulated abuse, although I will vote on potential abuse, and I default competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Kritik: I am fine with critical debate on either side of the resolution, although I prefer the K Aff to be rooted in the substance of the resolutions, that being said, I will listen to any justification as to why you should have access to non-topical versions of the affirmative. The framework should be informed by your methodology (meaning your framework should not just function as a way of excluding other positions, but actually inform how to evaluate your advocacy), your links contextualized to your indictments (some generics are fine, but it should include a breakdown of how the other teams position/mindset perpetuates the system), and an alternative that can actually resolve the harms of the K (meaning there needs to be very clear solvency that articulates how the alternative solves/functions in the real world). I don’t think rejection alts get us anywhere in the debate space, unless it is rejection on word choice/language (in which case I think those grievances are better articulated in the form of a procedural) or you clearly explain what that rejection looks like (in which case you should probably just use that explanation as your alternative in the first place). Permutation of the K alternative is perfectly fine, but I think on critical debates I need substantially more work on how the perm functions (especially in a world where the links haven’t been resolved). I am rather familiar with most of the K literature bases, but still think it is important for debaters to do the work of explaining the method/functionality of the K, and not rely on my previous knowledge of the literature base.

Disadvantages: I like a good DA/CP strategy, with a couple of caveats. The first is that the disadvantage needs to have specific links to the affirmative (generics just don’t do it for me), I am far more likely to vote on a unique disadvantage with smaller impacts, than a generic disadvantage with high magnitude impacts (although I will obviously weigh high magnitude impacts if you are winning probability). I have a rather high threshold for politics disadvantages, but if you can tell me which senator/representative will vote for which policy and why, I am far more likely to buy into the scenario (specifics are your friend on ptix).

Counter-Plans: I am fine with almost all types of counterplans (+1, pics, timeframe, etc.) but think they often need to be accompanied by theory arguments justifying their strategic legitimacy. I also think that mutual exclusivity competitiveness should always be preferred over simply having a net benefit/disadvantage that makes the position functionally competitive. I am fine with all types of permutations with justification (again often needs to be accompanied by theory). My threshold on perms are sometimes low, but I think that is because they are often under-covered, so knowing that you should be spending a great deal of time answering/going for the permutation if you want to win/not lose there.

General Notes:

1. Status of arguments: It is your responsibility to ask, and for the other team to answer (don’t give them the run-around, and if you aren’t sure just say dispo).

2. ALL “Text/ROB/Thesis” should be read twice, and made available for the other team.

3. The order you give at the beginning of your speech is actually important. I flow exclusively on paper, so switching between sheets/having them in the correct order helps me follow along. I completely understand that you have to switch up the flow mid speech sometimes, but you need to clearly signpost where you are (especially if you deviate from the order given).

- Additional Note: It causes me a great deal of physical pain to flow numerous consecutive high speed debates. Swings and tournaments that occur directly after one another (like NPDA/NPTE) are difficult for me. While I will still flow everything you say (regardless of speed) I have a very strong preference for debates to happen at a more moderate rate of speech. Which leads nicely into:

4. Speed: You can go as fast as you want in front of me, that being said, I’m not sure if going fast for the sake of going fast is always the best strategic choice, as your word count probably isn’t much higher even if you think you sound faster. I will "clear" and "slow" debaters, within reason, but competitors are ultimately responsible for making necessary adaptations.

5. I will listen to literally any argument (heady, aliens, personal narrative of a farmer from Wisconsin), doesn’t really matter to me, but please don’t put me in a situation in which I have to evaluate/endorse advocacies or authors that promote/have caused the mass death of people. Also, as far as identity politics go (this maybe should have gone in the K section) I think that debate is a great platform to talk about your own person experiences, but I think it’s important to note that oppression is often intersectional and is articulated/experienced in different ways. I think forced disclosure of experience/identity in order to interact with your position can be potentially harmful to others, and “trigger warnings” only work if you give people time to exit the room/are willing to punt the position.

6. DO NOT BE MEAN, I will tank speaks. Totally fine to being witty, and slightly confrontational, but avoid personal attacks, I would much rather listen to you actually debate. Overall I believe debate is a creative space, so feel free to run literally anything you want.

Experience:

4 years policy debate in Kansas, 4 years parliamentary debate at Louisiana Tech University, and Arkansas State University. 2 years Assistant Debate Coach at Arkansas State University. 4 years Assistant Director of Debate at Whitman College. Currently the Director of Debate & Forensics at Whitman College.

David Worth Rice University

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:29 AM CDT

David Worth – Rice

D.O.F., Rice University

Parli Judging Philosophy

Note: If you read nothing else in this, read the last paragraph.

I’ll judge based on given criteria/framework. I can think in more than one way. This means that the mechanisms for deciding the round are up for debate as far as I’m concerned. My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round but I will intervene if the round demands it. There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know something to factually incorrect (if someone is lying). In these cases, I try to stay out of the decision as much as I can but I don’t believe in the idea that any living person is really a blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.

I prefer debates that are related to the topic.

I will not vote for an argument that I don’t understand. If I can’t figure it out from what you’ve said in the round, I can’t vote on it.

I will admit that I am tired of debates that are mostly logic puzzles. I am tired of moving symbols around on paper. Alts and plan texts that are empty phrases don’t do it for me anymore. The novelty of postmodern critique that verges on--or actually takes the leap into--nihilism has worn off. I don’t think there’s much value anymore in affirming what we all know: That things can be deconstructed and that they contain contradictory concepts. It is time for us to move beyond this recognition into something else. Debate can be a game with meaning.

Warrants: I will not vote for assertions that don’t at least have some warrant behind them. You can’t say “algae blooms,” and assume I will fill in the internals and the subsequent impacts for you. You don’t get to just say that some counter-intuitive thing will happen. You need a reason that that lovely regionally based sustainable market will just magically appear after the conveniently bloodless collapse of capitalism. I’m not saying I won’t vote for that. I’m just saying you have to make an argument for why it would happen. NOTE: I need a good warrant for an "Independent Voting Issue" that isn't an implication of a longer argument, procedural, or somehow otherwise developed. Just throwing something in as a “voter” will not get the ballot. I reserve the right to gut-check these. If there is not warrant or if the warrant makes no sense to me, I won't vote on it.

Defense can win, too. That doesn’t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can’t outweigh defense, it simply means that just saying, “oh that’s just defense,” won’t make the argument go away for me. Debate is not football. There’s no presumption in the NFL, so that analogy is wrong.

You need to deal with all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for me as well. It’s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it’s equally rare that I will vote on the most general level of the ideas. In a bind, I will vote for what’s easier to believe and/or more intuitive.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. There are days when I need you to slow down a tad. I have battled carpal/cubital tunnel off and on for a few years and sometimes my hand just does not work quite as well. I’ll tell you if you need to clear up and/or slow down, but not more than a couple of times. After that, it’s on you.

Please slow down for the alt texts, plans, advocacies, etc., and give me a copy too. If I don’t have it, I can’t vote for it.

Strong Viewpoints: I haven’t yet found "the" issue that I can’t try to see all sides of.

Points of Order: Call them—but judiciously. I’ll probably know whether the argument is new and not calling them does not change their status as new. Also, if you’re clearly winning bigtime don’t call a ridiculous number of them. Just let the other team get out of the round with some dignity. If you don’t, your speaker points will suffer. It’ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.

If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team then be nice. I will lower your speaker points if you aren’t respectful or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it. If it’s egregious enough, you might even lose the debate.

You don’t need to repeat yourself just to fill time. If you’re finished, then sit down and get us all to lunch, the end of the day, or the next round early.

Theory: I’m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the day. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. I’m not going to tell you what to do. Debate is always in flux. Actually, I’ve learned or at least been encouraged to think differently about theory issues from debaters in rounds far more often than from anyone else. If I had pontificated about The Truth As I Knew It before those rounds, the debaters would have simply argued what I said I liked and I wouldn’t have learned, so it’s in my interest as well as yours for me not to hand you a sushi menu with the items I’d like to see checked off. PICS, Framework, Competing Interp, in-round abuse, etc. are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations, but, again, I can think in more than one way.

My “Debate Background:” I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.

Finally, I ask that you consider that everyone in the room has sacrificed something to be there. A lot of resources, time, and effort went in to bringing us all there. Be sure to show some respect for that. I am serious about this and it has come to occupy a significant portion of my thinking about debate these days. In fact, I think it’s time for the in-round bullying to stop. I see too many rounds where one team’s strategy is simply to intimidate the other team. I find it strange that an activity that talks so much about the violence of language often does so in such a needlessly aggressive and violent manner. In some rounds every interaction is barbed. Flex/CX is often just needlessly aggressive and sometimes even useless (when, for example, someone simply refuses to answer questions or just keeps purposely avoiding the question when it’s obvious that they understand the question, opting instead for aggression sometimes verging on ad hominem). I see too many other rounds where everyone is just awful to each other, including the judges afterward. You can be intense and competitive without this. We are now a smaller circuit. It’s strange that we would choose to spend so much time together yet be so horrible to each other.

Login to Tabroom

Rice University Classic

2024 — Houston, TX/US

NPDA Paradigm List

Judges