TLDR: State a clear problem in the status quo, have a clear link chain, and weigh your impacts! Try your best :)

Hello, I'm a junior at Nueva and I have been a parli debater for around 3 years. I'm comfortable with all Parli stuff, but not that experienced with other formats of debate. Treat me as a tech judge for parli and a flay judge for other types. Please ask me if you have any questions with my paradigm.

Case (Advantages/disadvantages)

For Aff, please have a clear top of case. This means: 1) Definitions. 2) Plan. 3) Weighing Mechanism.For each advantage, have a clear structure: UQ --> L --> MPX. Please clearly say when you are moving to the next section of a contention.

For Neg, please also have a clear structure: UQ --> L --> MPX. Please clearly say when you are moving to the next section of a contention. In addition, please leave enough time to respond to the Aff's arguments in the first speech!

For both teams, please weigh your impacts! Tell me which impacts are more important and why! Tell me whether I should weigh the magnitude of the impacts first, or the probability, or the timeframe! I default to Probability > Magnitude > Time Frame

PoO's

I protect against new arguments in the last speeches for the Aff and Neg for the novice division, but please call PoO's anyway! They are good practice because many judges don't, especially for the open division.

Evidence

All claims should be supported by both logical evidence and empirical/statistical evidence. For example, "40% of the population is in poverty, and this is because the government is corrupt and there is lack of infrastucture." Lacking either one of the evidence, arguments will likely be parallel (which is very bad because I can't evaluate it). In the case of a logical evidence vs empirical/statistical evidence debate, make arguments about which kind of evidence I should prefer.

Although you don't have to cite evidence in Parli, evidence is still a very very strong tool that strengthens your claims. Please do not fake evidence!! If I find out that your evidence is faked, I will drop you, give you low speaks, and report you to tabroom.

Unsportmanlike Conduct

Please treat each other with respect! Many times, it is the first tournament that someone has gone to, so please be nice to everyone. Do not laugh at your opponents or call them stupid. It is okay to say that their arguments are wrong, but not okay to say that their arguments are stupid.

I do not expect speed to be a problem in the novice division, but please do not speak so fast that your opponents cannot follow.

Theory/Ks

IMO, Novices should not be running friv theory or Ks. I will be very open to responses that are "wtf is a interp." If your opponents do not understand your argument, I will most likely not be voting for it.

I default to reasonability > competing interps

Hi!! My name is Charlotte and I'm a junior debating on Nueva's parli team. Please make sure you signpost where you are on the flow and make sure to have clear impacts. Also it would make my job a lot easier if you do your best to tell a clear story in the LOR/PMR with impact weighing!! I will vote based on arguments, not the way you speak.

What I think makes for a great debate: thorough responses on the opposing team's case, clear collapse (choosing a few arguments that you think you're winning on and then proving you win the round because of that in the last speech), well structured contentions, overviews, great evidence, and, (#1 tip:) a clear narrative/story for your side.

but above all: be inclusive and have fun!!!!! good luck!!