My paradigm is more of a combination of Tabula Rasa and speaking skills/communication. I prefer concise arguments that are understandable over speed. However, I will not count it against a debater if they prefer to deliver their debate speech a little faster. My most important factors are that the debater believe in their argument, and present it as such (with eye contact and confidence), while being able to discount their opponent's points.

Do not read fast or spread.

I am a lay judge who values quality over quantity and who will flow logic and vote off the better-reasoned argument.

Weighing and strong warrants are the most important: I expect debaters to extend not just the card name/tag but the warrant and rhetoric around the card too.

The more buzzwords you use, the less I can understand your argument. Make your link chain obvious and backed with logic and evidence since I will only vote off arguments that I understand.

Crossfire won't decide the round but will impact speaker points. I pay attention to cross and semi-flow it.

Remember that debate is a game after all. Have fun!

Adiel García- he/him

Debated 4 years of Policy and 3 years of Congress at Spring Hill, Kansas (2020-2024) (CJR, Water Resources, Emerging Technologies/NATO, and Economic Inequality).

Assistant policy coach at Millard North (2024-)

adieljcg05@gmail.com and millardnorthpolicy@gmail.com

Top Level

I don't know about IPR as much as you do

I flow on paper in line-by-line format with my computer open, but I don't flow from the doc. I still expect debaters to be clear.

Tech>Truth

I won't evaluate things that happened outside of the round. It's my job to judge the debate, not a debaters morality

Argument Specific

T-I default to competing interps. If you want me to prefer reasonability, explain what it looks like. T is never an RVI.

DA-They can either be super devastating or just meh. A specific link goes a long way.

CP-I think every counterplan needs a solvency advocate and some type net-benefit. I need an explanation in the 2NR over what the CP does and how the perm can't access the NB. I'm fine with delay and consult counterplans.

K-I've ran abolition, governmentality/biopower, imperialism, orientalism, and sett col. Assume that I'm not going to be familiar with your lit. I think the link is the most important part of the K. If I can't understand how the aff links to the K, I probably won't vote on it. Links of omission are not my favorite. You should read case in the 2NR if you plan for going for a K.

Sidenote on K-If you are reading arguments about an identity that you aren't apart of, I'm going to need you to explain your relationship to the lit. We need to educate ourselves on the roles that we play on in certain basis in literature.

Theory-I think that a majority of theory arguments, condo being the obvious exception, are reasons to reject the argument and not the team. I default to condo being good. I'm fine with vagueness and the a-z spec theory arguments. I will not judge kick, you chose to kick or drop an argument.

On case- I think a lot of people tend to underutilize case arguments. Re-highlighting and quality check of cards is something that is almost becoming extinct, do more of it. Wipe-out and spark are fine.

K-Aff/Planless-I ran a borders K-aff my junior year at some tournaments but that's about it. I think you should be in the direction of the topic. If you plan on reading a K-aff in front of me, I should be lower on your sheet. I think that providing a good C/I with actual authors and creating an interesting model of debate is very persuasive in response to T.

T-USFG/FW-Clash is the most convincing impact for me. I consider fairness as an internal link, not an impact. Explain to me how debate looks like under your model. Being specific with your offense is persuasive and good. A good TVA heavily convinces me.

Speaks

You start off at 28.5 and will either go up or down. I will not give you speaks if you ask for them. What determines you getting good speaks would be things such as signposting, warrant analysis, and in-depth debate. I will dock -.2 speaks for each time you ask what card the other team read or stopped at. FLOW!

20: you did something extremely offensive/disrespectful/hostile.

27.5-28.4: mediocre; prob not breaking
28.5-28.9: good; maybe breaking
29-29.4: very good; prob breaking
29.5-30.0: excellent; top speaker quality

Congress

I did this event religiously once policy season was done. I was state champion in Kansas as the PO (2024), PO at NCFL finals (2024) (11th in the nation) and semi-finalist at NSDA in both House (2024) and Senate (2022). I pay a lot of attention to presentation. Clash is important. Don't get gaveled down. Amendments are fine, but I'm not the biggest fan of amendment speeches. I evaluate POs based on their ability to know parli pro, control the chamber, and not mess up.

PF

I come from the policy world so I'm fine with going prog (theory, identity Ks, etc). Weigh the round well and you should win my ballot. Both teams should be disclosing. If you don't properly disclose I won't be afraid to drop you. Quit saying "de-link" just say no link. Also, quit using/saying "scope." Use time frame, magnitude, and probability. If you utter any of those two words, I will -.5 speaks.

LD

I'm more familiar with trad LD (value and v/c), however, I think I would be best to judge LARP rounds given my policy background. For phil, I'm only familiar with Rawls and Hobbes. I'm not sure how I feel about tricks, but it's probably safe not to run them.

Hi, I'm Parker or Mr. Klyn, whichever you are most comfortable with.

I am the Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA).

I coach national circuit PF and occasionally LD.

I'm on the NSDA Public Forum Topic & Wording Committee.

COME LEARN DEBATE FROM ME! NDF: Public Forum – Summit Debate. We have a stellar staff including Bashir Eltyeb (Iowa City West, TOC semifinalist), Michi Synn (Canyon Crest, dozens of bids), Devin Lester (Lakeville North, 3x TOC), and Ingrid Alg-Liening (Theodore Roosevelt, 3x Gold TOC). We support students of all experience levels, from brand-new novices to national circuit contenders. If you have any questions about camp, come talk to me (preferably after my ballot has been submitted).

"I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck," and "Most judges give appalling decisions." <-- Two quotes that illustrate my views on judging. My promise to you as a judge is always giving you 100% of my attention and rendering decisions that I honestly believe in and can defend/justify.

I debated PF in high school in rural Iowa (I was also a double 2[!] in the most local policy debate circuit of all time) and had no exposure to the national circuit. Since becoming head coach at Roosevelt we've had state champions and TOC qualifiers every year.

Debate is the best part of my life. I feel so lucky to be able to do this as my calling and I'm proud of you for doing it too.

If the round starts in 60 seconds and you don't have time to read the whole paradigm...

Public Forum: I am a standard national circuit PF flow/tech judge who can handle speed and is open to any form of argumentation, whether substantive or "progressive."

Lincoln-Douglas:

Policy/LARP: 1

K: 1

T/Theory: 1

Phil: 3

Tricks: 4

–––––––––––––––––––

Public Forum

Add me to the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com). In national circuit varsity/bid PF rounds, send speech docs with cut cards ahead of case & all speeches where you read new evidence. (i.e. not a link to a google doc, not just the rhetoric, etc.) This is non-negotiable. (1) It makes the debate and by extension the tournament run on time and (2) it allows me to be as non-interventionist as possible.

I’m a tech/blank-slate judge. "Intervention" is the scariest word in debate. I flow line-by-line on my computer or on paper depending how I'm feeling. Judge instruction is key. The best debaters essentially write my RFD for me in final.

The above means that I will vote on anything. However, due to time constraints and neg's ability to go first, I generally believe the format's best debates are substantive rounds over the resolution. With that being said, run whatever arguments (substance, K, theory, impact turns, etc.) you would like in front of me if you feel they will earn you the win. Debate is a game.

I vote on offense/defense, that includes framing, layering, and specific weighing mechanisms.

Speed is fine, go as fast as you want. However I will not have the speech doc open. It's your responsibility to be clear.

Be kind and respectful, I will never change a ballot on this but I will lower speaks especially when it comes to experience/age/resource imbalances.

I always disclose my decision alongside some feedback. Feel free to ask questions afterwards; let's leave the round feeling like we had a positive, enjoyable educational experience. My email is open for this purpose as well. Multiple debaters have told me I look intimidating/scary during round and then turn into a nice guy afterwards; I'm just tired.

Speaks are based on technical execution, not some arbitrary standard of what makes a "good speaker." I will bump your speaks slightly if you open-source disclose.

Long story short, Just win baby~!

–––––––––––––––––––

Lincoln-Douglas

Email: klynpar@gmail.com

People get scared when they see a primarily PF coach in their circuit LD judge pools -- I promise, I can handle what you're throwing at me as long as you do the effective work in judge instruction. In any debate event, capable judging is a must-have, and I will live up to that expectation.

Overriding judge philosophy is blank slate/no judge intervention. Debate's a game, do what you have to do to win.

You are welcome to run whatever you want, but based on what I've watched, I am most comfortable with: Policy/LARP, Ks (of both the Aff and the debate space), and topicality/non-friv theory i.e. disclosure. Love scouring the opencaselist for unique, creative arguments. I am not confident in evaluating performance, academic philosophy, or postmodernist arguments -- these would probably require lots of warranting and explanation, but if that's your lane, don't feel the need to adjust to me. Ultimately, I'd rather see a team perform an advocacy they're confident in than over-adapt.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're flowable (I will not flow off a doc; this is the one place where it's up to the debaters to adapt, not the judge).

I value the intellectual freedom that debate provides -- running arguments and justifications that exist outside the academic norm is one of the event's true benefits. The only arguments I will not vote on are unwarranted IVIs and "new affs bad."

Iowa circuit: Run whatever you want. I'm open to "traditional" Lincoln-Douglas but you need to meet the bare minimum of argumentation in extending framing (your value/criterion) and weighable offense (your contention(s)) for me to vote for you. I don't fill in any gaps, I often presume aff/neg if one side establishes that the status quo is currently good/bad because neither side extended any complete arguments.

–––––––––––––––––––

Congress

If you're in Iowa and you do the literal bare minimum (speak as much as you can, provide sources for your arguments, REFUTE OTHER SPEECHES, ask questions), you're practically guaranteed to finish in the top half of my ballot. Seriously, why are so many of y'all just seemingly along for the ride!

If you do not add new argumentation or refute previous speeches you will not get a rank, regardless of how "good of a speaker" you are.

It is difficult for me to rank POs in the top 3 -- if they are tied on points, I will always go with the people who actually debated.

–––––––––––––––––––

Speech

Just like debate, speech is very hard. Because I value your long hours of preparation, I promise I am fully invested in your performance and will evaluate it to the best of my ability. I would consider myself a competent Extemp (coached multiple state champions) and Platform (coached a NIETOC semifinalist) judge and a middling Interp judge -- UNLESS it's POI, in which case I definitely know what I'm doing. I look forward to seeing what you have prepared!

Extemp: Don't just answer the question accurately, but implicate it -- why is this even question being asked? Confident facial expressions and humor are always appreciated.

Platform (OO/INFO): Topic selection is massively important. No matter how technically proficient you are, if your thesis boils down to "we should be nice to each other" or "here's some information about something" you will probably not get a high rank. I put strong emphasis on actually taking a bit of a risk for your topic selection and eschewing "safer" options.

Interp: I do not have much expertise when it comes to these, although I adore POI as the work involved in crafting a strong program feels far more intellectually robust than simply performing a dramatic or humorous piece. All interp performances should feature believable acting, clear storytelling structure, distinct characters, and intentional blocking. I do NOT value excessively traumatic topics in DI; they feel very cynical and almost exploitative to me. HI should obviously make me laugh. The interplay between performers in DUO is fun. And in POI, the most important thing I'm looking for is a clear theme or thesis that ties your program together.

–––––––––––––––––––

Debate thoughts:

1) Flow. It is so easy to tell when you're not flowing.

2) You should not need a marked doc when only a couple cards were skipped.

3) This idea that "spreading has no real-world benefits" is so blatantly and obviously false to anyone who has actually engaged in fast debate. Worse argumentation presented in a pretty manner is indisputably less academically robust and pedagogically valuable than more in-depth argumentation presented at a speedy pace.

4) Judges should not look at evidence before submitting their ballot unless directly instructed to throughout the course of the round as a result of a legitimate substantive contestation that was not resolved by debating. Looking at evidence invites judge intervention, where debates should only be resolved based on words spoken within speech times.

5) Everyone should always be willing to proactively disclose all evidence read previously in a debate. People who don't do this usually fall into a few camps: (1) genuinely being uninformed (in which case adjusting to disclosing is an easy fix), (2) strategic reasons (i.e. those who know deep down disclosure is good and utilize disclosed evidence in their files but do not disclose themselves to prevent prep-outs), or (3) coaching (i.e. their coach won't let them, tells them it's bad, etc.). All of these reasons fall apart if debate is to be taken remotely seriously as an academic endeavor. If my debaters can disclose every constructive and rebuttal card in their extremely personal Black Nihilism K you can disclose your stuff too. (Note that this does not mean I am a disclosure theory hack.)

6) Despite the time and energy I spend in this wonderful activity, I am a glorified volunteer. I teach literacy to struggling readers and my stipend averages to about $2/hour. Many debate coaches, even those at the highest levels, are in similar situations -- be good to them.

7) Be kind and reasonable to everyone in the activity, whether you are a judge (don't bully children in your RFD, don't arbitrarily change speaker points because they brought you food) or competitor (welcome novices with open arms, practice epistemic humility, thank the adults in your life who have allowed you to find a home in debate). If you are someone who indicates in their paradigm that they increase speaker points for anything unrelated to debating or norm-setting, I actively think less of you as a member of our community and feel immense second-hand embarrassment on your behalf.

8) Stick with debate. I emphatically believe is the best thing you can do with your time in high school.

Hi my name is Jordi Perez. I did speech and debate all 4 years in high school, qualified 3 times for state, I competed in: Congress, DUO, OO, Impromptu, Policy, Parli, and PF. For a lack of better words I am in a lay judge and I value truth over tech. I will decide my round on a mixture of clarity, speaking skills, and convincing arguments. P.S. I am not a huge fan of overly technical debate.

I have judged several debate rounds before. Parent judge.

Speak at a reasonable pace and create logical arguments and impacts.

Please be respectful and don't interrupt you opponents.

Please share case and speech docs to shanyang2013@gmail.com

I look forward to an exciting and insightful debate.