Introduction:

Hello! My name is Preston (he/him).

In high school, I competed in parli for 4 years at MVLA Speech and Debate (s/o Nevin and everyone else).

I graduated not too long ago, so I haven't judged a whole lot yet.

I mostly debated both technical and lay case, but ran some theory in more technical rounds.

If you have any questions after reading this paradigm, ask me before the round.

Parli Paradigm:

In general, I'll do my very best to evaluate any arguments given, but my bread and butter exists somewhere in the technical case debate realm.

Things I generally like to see include nuanced arguments out of the leader speeches, interactive/thorough refutations throughout the round, and solid collapses at the end that tell me why certain arguments matter and how you win them. Tech > truth. I will evaluate theory but have a high standard for friv T. I will also try my best to evaluate Ks, but I’m not the best judge for those kinds of arguments. I don’t know a whole bunch of K lit, and unless it is explained well, I won’t vote for it. Don’t be mean when running technical arguments, especially if you think there’s a chance that your opponents are unfamiliar with them (we all start somewhere).

How I evaluate a round:

Layering:

Tell me what I’m evaluating first (case, T, K) in a round and why. This needs to happen first before I can look at anything else.

Weighing Mechanism:

Tell me how I should evaluate that layer and why. It is crucial that this is well articulated (I don’t like having to intervene).

Impact Weighing:

Tell me what impact(s) matter the most and why. This is also crucial so do it well.

Strength of Link:

Tell me how the arguments in the round do/don’t get to the impacts. Make sure you get access to the impacts that matter.

Decisions + Speaks:

I don’t like reducing rounds to a W or L in tabroom, so I will try my best to deliver a good RFD (whether verbal or written). A lot of rounds I’ve seen can go either way, so don’t be too discouraged if you don’t pick up my ballot (you can probably find other judges who would have voted for you, split ballots exist!).

I give good speaks, with the exception of hateful behavior towards opponents or others in a round.

Miscellaneous:

You have a time limit. Feel free to finish a sentence that you started, but don’t make new arguments past time.

Don’t speak super duper fast. I’ll slow you down if I need to.

Tag teaming is fine, just make it clear. I will only flow the speaker’s arguments. Be nice to your partner.

I will (try) to protect the flow. Do call POOs though.

I don’t flow POIs.

Make random analogies. It’s fun.

Mentioning a random 2010s basketball player may or may not have a beneficial impact on your speaks.

I love debate and you probably do too (it is a rough relationship sometimes though). Let’s make this as fun and enjoyable for everyone as possible.

he/him

I debated with Campolindo for 4 years and qualified for TOC twice; I'm now debating at Berkeley.

I will try to minimize judge intervention and am happy to evaluate any type of argument on the flow. Debate the way in which you are the most comfortable! Please don't be abusive/violent to your opponents in round.In high school I ran K's on the aff and neg, theory (often FWT), and case with CPs.

Without argumentation from either side, I default to:

- presumption flows aff if neg reads an advocacy, and flows neg otherwise

- theory > k > case

- competing interpretations

parent judge. no spreading. ty

Introduction/Background

Hey! Shaur's partner speaking (or typing, I guess)! My name is Evan and my pronouns are he/him. I'm currently a speech coach for the Mountain View Los Altos Speech and Debate team. Before college, I competed in parli debate for about 5 years, and before high school, I did duo interpretation for 3 years(I highly recommend doing duo btw it was probably the most fun I had in speech and debate ever, sorry parli).

I mostly did lay and technical case debate, but I occasionally ran some theory (mostly in response to other theory or Ks).

Also, this paradigm is long, so feel free to just read the tl;dr and the underlined parts for the important information. The not-underlined stuff is mostly just there to clarify the jargon I used or clarify what I meant by something I underlined. So if everything I underlined makes sense, no need to read the stuff that isn't underlined!

And, if you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round!

Speech Paradigm:

I'm new to judging speech so this paradigm is definitely subject to change!

In general, my rankings and feedback will focus on the content of your speech (in events where you had to prepare the content of your speech yourself), and the delivery of your speech (in all events). I will do my best to let nothing else influence my decision. That being said, I think it's pretty much impossible to judge speech (or debate) objectively. I'll do my best to judge everyone on the same general standards, but with people presenting a variety of unique pieces, it's inevitably going to involve comparing apples to oranges in some regards. With that in mind, I will do my best to judge fairly, but I think it's only fair to admit that my decisions will be influenced by my subjective opinion. As with any opinion, I'd ask you to hear it out, but you shouldn't take my words as some objective truth. Instead, I hope you take my words as feedback. Some parts of my feedback may be helpful, other parts may not. Take what works for you!

I'm open to you performing speeches that break with conventions, as long as they abide by the rules of the event. I think it's really cool to see students stretch the boundaries of what's considered possible in a given event, so don't be afraid to try something new!

Most importantly, have fun!! Rankings are just numbers on a computer that you'll forget by the time you leave high school. Skills, friendships, and memories — those can last a lifetime. That's what makes speech worth doing (at least in my opinion).

Parli Paradigm:

TL;DR - Be nice and have fun!!! I prefer technical case debate, but I'll do my best to evaluate any arguments you present. I consider myself tech over truth. I'm most persuaded by strategic arguments, good weighing, and leveraging dropped arguments. Theory is cool. I will vote for frivolous theory if you win it, but I'll probably be sad. Ks are cool too, but I feel less confident about my ability to properly evaluate them. It's probably best to assume that I'm not familiar with your K lit, and I probably won't vote for an argument I don't understand :(

How I Reach My Decisions

I usually make my decisions by following these steps:

1. Order the layers in the debate round

Common layers in a round are case, K, and theory. This is, of course, not an exhaustive list. Everything starts on the same layer by default. If you want me to put anything (including Ks and theory) above anything else, you need to give me a good argument for why I should! The argument can be simple, but I have to be able to understand it, and you have to win it in the round. I won't fill it in for you.

If the term "case layer" isn't familiar to you, I just mean the part of the debate that has to do with the impacts of the plan after we imagine it passes. Often, the whole debate is in the case layer.

Next, I'll go through the following steps with the top layer (and then with go through them with the layers below if necessary).

2. Determine the weighing mechanism I'm using for the given layer

Win an argument telling me why I should use your weighing mechanism, and I'll use it! I default to net benefits on the case layer and K layer if neither team gives me a weighing mechanism (but usually the debaters give me a different weighing mechanism for the K layer). I default to competing interpretations on the theory layer if neither team gives me a weighing mechanism.

3. Order the impacts in the layer

This order depends on the debate. Tell me what this order should be by weighing your impacts in the round! See the "weighing" section for more info.

4. See who's winning the debate on the top impact (and then the impacts below it if necessary)

If there's a clear winner of the top/most important impact, they'll usually win the round, especially if a team wins arguments that the top impact outweighs everything else in the round. For example, if both teams have environmental impacts, and both teams agree that the environment is the most important issue in the round, I'll most likely vote for whichever side I feel is better for the environment (based on the arguments in the round).

5. If a winner isn't decided based on this layer, I move to the layer below it and repeat steps 2 through 4. I keep doing this until I find a winner!

My Thoughts on Decisions and RFDs

I think in almost every round there's a valid RFD (reason for decision) for either side. If that's true, I think it follows that any decision about who "won" is really just an opinion. So I think, ultimately, all RFDs, mine included, are really just opinions. As with any opinion, I'd ask you to hear it out, but you shouldn't take my words as some objective truth. Instead, I hope you take my words just as feedback. Some parts of my feedback may be helpful, other parts may not. Take what works for you! Also remember that I'm human and I make mistakes. If you felt you won that round, then walk out of that round feeling like a winner! I can't stop you! And if you felt you lost that round, walk out of that round ready to become an even better debater and kill it in your next round! Regardless, and most importantly, I hope you also walk out of that round feeling like you learned something and had some fun along the way!!

What do I think is a strategic argument

I think a strategic argument is composed of a clear claim, good evidence to support that claim, and a well-explained reason why your claim being true means I should vote for you.

How to win arguments (at least in my book)

In my opinion, the best ways to prove your argument beats your opponent's argument are:

• Leveraging dropped arguments! If your opponent doesn't respond to one of your arguments at all, I will consider that argument to be true. Given that, tell me how the dropped argument proves that your opponent's side is wrong in this debate. But remember, (at least in my opinion) an argument consists of a claim, at least one warrant, and an implication. Be warned: even if an argument is dropped, I probably won't vote on it if it doesn't have each of those 3 parts!

• Weighing! Tell me why your warrants (logical or "cited") are better than your opponent's warrants and/or tell me why your argument matters more. For more explanation, see the "Weighing" section of this paradigm.

• Using "even if" scenarios! This means tell me why you're winning "even if" I believe that their argument (or at least some part of their argument) is true. Often your argument can't win if I believe everything they say is true, but do your best to pick as many parts of their argument as possible and explain why your winning even if I believe all those parts you picked!

Weighing

Weigh your impacts! If you give me valid arguments about how your impacts outweigh your opponents' impacts and they don't respond, you'll probably win!

Do metaweighing, if you're into that! In other words, tell me which weighing mechanism I should look at first! That means making arguments like magnitude should be considered over/before probability, probability should be considered over/before magnitude, or timeframe should be considered over/before magnitude and probability! It can make my job a lot easier (and I think whoever does the metaweighing will usually like the outcome).If you do metaweighing, make sure to tell me why you're winning under your metaweighing!

Weigh evidence/arguments! Tell me which evidence I should believe and why, especially if there are two competing pieces of evidence that are critical to the round. Pretty much any argument about how your evidence is better proof of your claim than theirs is will do me a big favor!

By default, I'll usually consider "cited" evidence (like statistics and historical facts) stronger than logical evidence (evidence that's just your logical reasoning about why something is true), but this isn't a steadfast opinion/order. I'm definitely open to changing this belief if you win an argument about it in the round. Also, since this is parli, you don't actually have to "cite" your source (since all citations are non-verifiable in parli land). If you don't cite a source, but present something like a statistic or a historical fact, I'll still treat it as "cited" evidence.

New Arguments in the Last Speeches (LOR and PMR)

I'll do my best to protect the flow (meaning I won't consider new arguments made in these speeches), but calling the POO (Point of Order) is still appreciated!

I count new metaweighing arguments as new arguments in the last two speeches, even if they're technically "just weighing". Otherwise, I think the PMR in particular could give a billion reasons why they're winning on whatever weighing mechanism they choose and then argue that I should consider that one weighing mechanism above all else, and hypothetically they would win every round.

Other than metaweighing, I think new impact weighing/comparison is generally fair game in the last two speeches since they're supposed to be summarizing and crystalizing the round. That being said, if a new weighing claim made in the PMR ends up being a pivotal argument in my decision, I'll usually lean toward siding with the negative and stretch more to cross-apply negative arguments that could respond to this weighing claim (since the negative doesn't have a chance to respond to the PMR weighing, but the aff has a chance to respond to the LOR weighing).

Theory

I'll default to evaluating theory using competing interpretations. If you can prove that their interpretation is bad I don't really see why you need to read a counter-interpretation though. If you don't read a counter-interpretation, I'll just assume you're defending the debate status quo (which is usually just their interpretation but replace "must" or "must not" with "may or may not"), kind of like I assume the neg is defending the status quo if they don't read a counterplan. Still, the team reading theory can give disadvantages to your implied counter-interpretation, so not defending it might be an uphill battle. So, in summary, I basically just think of competing interpretations as net benefits of the interpretation.

Remember when I said I'll be sad if I vote for friv theory. That's probably true in most cases where you don't know your opponents. But, if you do know your opponents and you know everyone in the round will have fun with it, then go for it! I'm not the fun police (I hope). But, if both teams aren't really comfortable with it, I'll be sad.

Kritiks

Ks weren't really my thing in high school, so I don't have too many thoughts on them. I'll probably be more receptive to common sense responses than the average tech judge, even if these common sense arguments don't have the technical jargon commonly used in effective K responses.

Please explain your arguments clearly! Both so your opponents can effectively engage in the round, and so I can do a better job evaluating your arguments. Assume I don't know your K lit because I probably don't!

If you can tell your opponents you'll be reading a K before the round, it would be great if you do. It would be even better if you disclose your advocacy or the thesis of the K you're reading. I think the discussion and insight you get out of the round are a lot more valuable if both teams are able to effectively prepare for the debate they're about to have, and I do think it's often unfair if one team gets 0 minutes to prep responses to a K the other team spent days writing.

That being said, I think disclosure theory debates can get messy since the violation debate is hard to resolve without just taking one team's word for it. If faced with disclosure theory I'll do my best to evaluate it based on the arguments made in the round, but in all honesty, I'll probably feel forced to intervene to reach a decision on the theory shell, so I'll do my best to find something else to decide the round.

I do think I'll probably be a little more receptive to TUSfg/Framework T than the average tech judge, (but if you run framework T you'll certainly still have to work for the win).

I consider the ROB (Roll Of the Ballot) the thesis of your framework section. In my view, the arguments you make in the framework section are the evidence supporting your ROB. If your opponents effectively respond to your framework, but they don't explicitly answer your ROB, I won't consider your ROB conceded (because I'd consider the evidence behind the ROB refuted).

Other random thoughts

Please don't respond to an argument by saying, "This claim doesn't have any evidence, so you shouldn't consider it" and then moving on! They may have no evidence that their claim is right, but if you move on I'm also left with no evidence that their claim is wrong! Your evidence doesn't need to be from an online source. In my opinion, especially in parli, logic is considered evidence. So, if you point out their claim doesn't have evidence and then ALSO give me some logical reason that their claim probably isn't true, you're golden!

Counterplans can be offense because opportunity costs are still costs.

In terms of speed, I can probably handle up to 150 words per minute. If you go too far above that I might miss some things, but I'll hopefully catch the main ideas for most of what you're saying. I'll slow or clear you if I really can't keep up, but even if I haven't said anything it's best to slow down if there's anything really important that you want to make sure is on my flow and you've been going fast.

Tag teaming is fine! I'll only flow what the designated/current speaker is saying though (so the current speaker will have to repeat whatever their partner said if they want me to consider it). My definition of tag teaming is when a person talks during their partner's speech, usually to give them an idea or tell them to respond to some argument.

I won't flow questions asked (or statements made) during POIs or during flex. I think POIs should not be used to make statements or arguments during your opponents' speech. They should be used for clarifying or strategic questions. In my opinion, strategic questions are questions that could strengthen an argument you want to make later based on their response. Strategic questions don't involve effectively stating the thesis of an argument you want to make. Telling them your argument during their speech only gives them more time to think of a good response, so (at least in my opinion) it's probably not the most strategic choice!

Also, I'm sorry if the formatting is messed up, I promise it looks better in the paradigm editor, but for some reason it looks like it doesn't convert well when other people view it :((

I am a parent judge. This is my first year judging.

I value logical reasoning, how easy it is for one to follow the train of thought, and how well you speak/conduct yourself. If your opponent commits a fallacy or makes an inaccurate/unfair statement, it is your responsibility to call out.

If your argument consists of many points, please arrange them so that the most important one is presented first. When making a point, be clear about whether it is a new contention, a part of or an example of the last contention.