I’m an alumna with three and a half years of parliamentary debate experience and sporadic judging experience in the decades that have followed. My senior year I was 3rd speaker of the year by cumulative speaker points. Since then I have judged at several worlds and NorthAms and organized and attended Canadian debaters’ outreach visit to Ukraine behind the Iron Curtain.

Courtesy and parliamentary language should prevail in all rounds: I abhor the recent trend at the collegiate level toward gutter language in rounds. Don’t use it! It won’t benefit you in debate or in the real world, either. It should go without saying that racist, sexist, homophobic and other abusive language has no place in the debate world: it has no place in my rounds.

I take notes during debates, but I’m not a slave to flowing. To that end, I appreciate debate in normal, conversational tones during rounds and am put off by speed talking. The same goes for spreading. Signposting is a wonderful way to organize and reinforce arguments and is greatly appreciated, though debaters need not feel they must number their arguments.

New arguments in rebuttals will be ignored, but POOs pointing them out are not a waste of time. I do not expect debaters to shrink from POIs, but I do not impose a quota: those who ignore all of them will be marked down for it. Neither theory nor kritiks thrill me: I prefer the round to be about the round. That said, I will consider any reasonable argument that is clearly enunciated.

What I value is style, content and clash – not necessarily in that order. Bring your best and treat your opponents with respect. The rest will take care of itself.

I prefer that students make well considered arguments at a reasonable rate of speech. When presenting original or unfamiliar arguments, rely on the best of your knowledge as a student and ask yourself: does this argument check out for me logically (in terms of cause and effect, correlation, etc.)? and not just solely in language, in terms of article availability on Google, or on paper somewhere. While student debaters do not have time to evaluate evidence according to detailed strands of criteria, I expect that 'wild arguments' will only be presented to the extent that they conform with students' understanding of reality, cause and effect, reason, logic, etc., not just parallelisms to current events. All debates will be considered on their internal merits, coherence, and strength of argument, and I value students' recognition that competitive debate is fundamentally a learning experience where all are included fully.

1. Convincing arguments over speed or other stylistic elements of debates
2. Strength and confidence over aggression without substance.
3. Clear justification to your claim, clear impacts and clear weighing.
4. Good pace of speaking - not too fast, not too slow
5. If you can display a good understanding of the topic , its a real big plus.
6. Convince me with common sense and logical reasoning.

Experience : I am new to judging, have judged a few tournaments this year.

I am a Senior Principal engineer by profession. Being clear, logical and paying Attention to detail are important qualities to success.

I’m a first year judge. Make it easier for me to understand by clearly repeating what your opponent stated when you are refuting. Kept debate jargon to a minimal, definitions are helpful. I am persuaded by fact and statistics, projections need to have a basis.

For middle schoolers: You can ignore the rest of this paradigm. I most value clash and engaging with your opponents arguments :) Respond to each of their contentions with clear logic/warrants so that I don't have to evaluate them myself. Weighing is important in your final speech, as it significantly helps me with making a decision.

Hi, I'm Sheryl. I competed Parliamentary debate in high school for Menlo-Atherton.

I mostly LARPed/policy and read some theory/philosophy with an occasional K

• Tech > truth
• Speed is mostly fine if your opponents can handle it, but it has also been a while since I've had to flow spreading
• Call the POO
• Please signpost well!

Have fun :)

I have no experience in debating or judging debate. Please provide me with clear, concrete reasons as to why I should vote for you. I value well-structured arguments and a logical progression of ideas.

tl;dr: I'm a flow Parliamentary judge, good with speed. If you make my job of evaluating easier by collapsing and covering the flow, then you'll get my ballot. open to Ks but running one doesn't automatically win you my ballot.i usually give oral feedback after the round.

Quick Bio: Hello! My name is Renée Diop and I'm a high school debate coach, tutor, judge, and former competitor. I championed the California High School Speech Association State Championship in Parliamentary Debate in 2022, and now pass on my recent knowledge of the game to current high school students.

CASE:

Both sides: Definitions need to come out of the first 2 constructive speeches, no backtracking and redefining halfway through the round. For the love of Allah (SWT), collapse collapse collapse.

Aff: I want a killer MG; a good PMR won't win me over if the MG was trash. Kill the flow and leave Neg with zero outs and I'll give you a cookie. For the PMR the best you can do for me is reframe the round and contextualize it under your weighing mechanism, but most of the time my mind is already made up before then.

Neg: LOC needs to hard carry right out the gate. Open to PICs and counter-definitions as long as they come from the LOC and nowhere else; LOR should be preempting, wiping the flow clean so I can vote without even having to listen to the PMR.

THEORY:

Overall: Open to friv T, just don't read off 10 standards and be a douche about it. Keep it cute and fun. Collapse on 1 voters/impact, don't be messy and make me do all the work to evaluate several different layers. Anything that makes me do more work is something to avoid doing. Tell me T > Ks and T > case, but give legitimate reasons for why.

Ks Bad T: Not a fan of it. I love a good K, what can I say. Unless you can present me with some new and unique standards, I believe that Ks specifically grant access to minority debaters, and generalizing all Ks as being "bad" by default is a red flag for me. The only other circumstance I would vote for them is if your opponents are being blatantly inaccessible by spreading you out of the round, being ivory tower, etc.

Framework or Disclosure T: Now this is reasonable. I'll vote for this if you're smart about it. If not, my default is to accept Aff Ks so take this opportunity if it arises.

KRITIKS:

Overall: Cool with Aff Ks as long as you disclose during prep. I did gender, queer, necro-capitalism, anti-blackness, settler colonialism, and marx Ks in high school so if your K aligns with any of those then go for it, BUT ALSO I'M OPEN TO ALL KS!Be accessible or your K has no impact! This means 1) Don't spread your opponents out of the round. Slow when they ask you to. 2) Give definitions for the hella obscure words your literature references. I'm no parent judge, but I also don't have a PhD in English. I'm cool Ks as long as you can translate it to the common vernacular.

Framework: I should know exactly what your thesis is by the end of the FW. Don't wait until the alternative to clearly explain your ideas. Tell me how to evaluate pre vs. post fiat impacts, tell me K > Case, and give me a role of the ballot.

Links: Quality > quantity. No link means no K, so choose them wisely. I want claim, evidence, reasoning like a sophomore year Honors English class. Don't just say, "Our opps did this so they're linking into the K!" actually explain it and justify it with evidence.

Alternative: Not huge on revolutionary/utopian alts, I find them to be no different than post-fiat arguments in most circumstances. If your K has in-round, debate-space solvency then I'll love and cherish you till the ends of the earth <3.

K vs. K rounds: You're so cool if you do this. Love the inevitably high amounts of clash these rounds produce. Just make sure there are proper re-links and that your alternative solves/is a prerequisite to solving theirs.

Thank you for reading & good luck! Questions? Email me at dioprenee@gmail.com.

Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.

Email chain: myprofessionalemail47@yahoo.com, ejumico@gmail.com

Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks

-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.

-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.

-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.

-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.

Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds

-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.

-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.

-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.

-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.

-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.

-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.

-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.

-Answer theory please.

Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background

West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know so you need to tell me what I need to vote on verbatim. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.

Round specificities

CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.

T-team:Ok.

Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.

Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.

Hello, I am a newer judge. Please avoid speaking too fast or too quietly, otherwise it will be hard to follow the arguments. I would also appreciate it if you can signpost while debating to differentiate what argument you are making or point you are rebutting. I find it is helpful if you are on camera to better follow your argument. Also please state your name at the beginning before you start your time.

I am a new judge interested in hearing logical debates and paced speeches from well spoken debaters.

Congress

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

LD Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

CX

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments.

NFA-LD

I view NFA-LD as one-person policy. Please refer to CX comments just above.

INTERP

Overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

PARLI:

THE SHORT VERSION: Avoid speed and jargon, and in rebuttal, focus on fewer arguments and develop them rather than trying to win everything. Connect your arguments to the resolution, and where appropriate, to the standard for judging the round, and definitions of key terms. No tag team. No offtime roadmaps/thank yous. Take at least one or two POIs, and don't make that POO unless it's clear cut and important. Unreceptive to kritiks. Raise topicality if the case is legitimately outside the resolution, but do so briefly and simply, explaining the interpretation and violation then moving on. Please run other theory arguments only when necessary to protect the fairness/safety of the space, not just because they're fun or to gain a strategic advantage.

THE LONGER VERSION: I am the debate coach for Berkeley High School. I've been involved in debate (all kinds) for longer than I care to admit, and parli almost the whole time. I am now a practicing lawyer.

1. I tend to focus on where the analysis is, rather than where the drops are.

2. I dislike excessive speed (that is, faster than you would talk outside of a debate round) and jargon (any term that would be unintelligible to a non-debater). Employing either of these will hurt your chances of winning, maybe by a lot.

3. Please, please, please focus on a few key issues in rebuttal and really develop them, rather than trying to cover everything, and saying little about each point. If you don't spend much (or any) time on your key offense, you're in trouble.

4. No tag teaming. It's not your turn to speak.

5. Please don't say "Try or die." It's trite and overused. When you say "try or die," I hear "we don't have any good responses to their analysis that our plan won't solve the problem." Use your time instead to explain your causation arguments more clearly, or the lack of offense on the other side.

6. Topicality is a necessary rule and voting issue, but the cottage industry of theory that has blossomed around it is not only unnecessary but also a huge drag on substantive debate. Do not spend more than 30-90 seconds of any speech on topicality unless the round genuinely presents the most complex topicality question you've ever encountered, or unless you genuinely can't clash on any other argument in the round. If you're challenging their plan/arguments as non-topical, just explain what the Gov team is supposed to prove ("the interpretation") and why they do or don't prove it ("violation/no violation"). If you're challenging their definition, tell me their definition, the "real" definition, why yours is better, and why it matters. That's it. I don't want to hear arguments about the consequences of the violation. If the Gov doesn't affirm the resolution, they lose. If they do, I'll probably ignore topicality unless the Opp interpretation is farfetched and/or they violate the above 30-90 second rule, in which case I'll consider voting against them to deter similar topicality arguments in the future ("RVI"). But again, I will make this call based on the quality of the interpretation and violation arguments; don't waste your speech time with RVI theory. In the interest of candor and your ability to adapt, I've never heard an argument for competing interpretations that I found persuasive, so trying to convince me is probably not a good use of your time.

7. Please take at least one or two points of information.

8. I'm pretty loose on counterplans as long as a good debate can still be had, and I'm okay with kicking them. I have a pretty low threshold for rejecting plan inclusive counterplans, though, since they usually seem like attempts to avoid having a substantive debate.

9. Kritiks: I am generally unreceptive to them. You can use your speech time however you like, but I have a very strong default to judging the round based on arguments for and against the resolution, which you will have to persuade me to abandon. The fact that you have better K debate skills than your opponent does not inherently validate your stated justification for running the K.

10. Shadow extensions. If an argument is on my flow and unresponded to, it's yours until rebuttals. I don't need it to be extended in every speech if the other side is ignoring it. I'm also not deeply troubled by new responses in LOR that should have been made in MO, because I don't see the harm to the other team. (But I still encourage you to say it in MO when in doubt.)

11. Random things I will not penalize you for ignoring, but I will appreciate if you do read and consider:
a. You don't mean it when you say "Time starts on my first word." You said your first words 12-18 years ago. That's a long speech. And even if you're talking about the present, literally, "Time" was your first word. Unless you had an offtime roadmap.
b. It is wrong for me to vote mid-round, so please don't ask me to do it. In fact, I'd prefer you didn't call for the ballot at all. Just make good arguments for your side.
c. "Empirics" doesn't mean what you think it means. Neither does "Solvency."

d. Eggs>Easy.

LD/PUFO:

No plans or counterplans, please. If you run one, I will probably drop you. I prefer traditional-style LD value debate.

POLICY DEBATE

I don't judge policy debate much, but when I do, none of the above applies. I'll judge it based exclusively on the flow, and try to be as tabula rasa as I can.

Hello!

I am a parent judge, and I don't have that much experience judging so please bear with me. Make it clear where you are at within your speech, and give logical reasoning. I will vote off of whichever arguments convince me best, and have proper impacting. I am fine with whatever speaking style you are comfortable with, but try not to speak too fast.

I look forward to judging you!

I am a parent judge. I have judged parli in few events. I take notes using a template.

Hello everyone,

This is my first season judging debates. I appreciate it when the debaters speak slowly and clearly, when they use off time roadmaps, signposts and when they give concrete examples to support their propositions. However, I will not penalize debaters if they do not provide examples.

I appreciate everyone's time and participation in this program.

Elyssa

Judge Paradigm:

Experience: Judging for 1 year now

General Philosophy: I aim to evaluate debates based on argumentation quality and persuasion. I am open to a variety of debate styles, but I prioritize logical coherence, strong warranting, and clear impacts. Lincoln-Douglas (LD) Preferences:

I expect debaters to establish values and a framework and show how their case functions within it. I'm fine with policy heavy cases, but need solvency. I can handle speed but need clarity to flow your argument. I usually vote who best upholds their framework or if there isn't one the most compelling case under net benefits.

Please CLEARLY state impacts.

Do not misrepresent evidence, I take that very seriously.

Here are a few guidelines for a debate round I'm judging:

-Of course, do not use any discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language during your speech

-Small aspects of your speech could have a impact in my RFD since they can interrupt important parts of your speech if they are distracting or invest me into your speech more if executed correctly

-Weigh correctly! It is the most important part of a round

-Please signpost during your speeches. I'm a slower writer with certain utensils (pencils for example), so you should make sure that I know of how your case connects

-Use proper debate terminology! It makes you sound more experienced during your round

-As the second speaker, make unique arguments. According to me, your speech was a waste if you just repeated your partner's points (try to do some more weighing and focus on refuting)

In general, I should be considered a lay judge. I have a history with Speech and Debate as well as a background in political science, but I prefer debaters that can communicate with a diverse audience. I used to say that I was okay with spreading but found that students would either start to spread beyond my comfort zone or speak incoherently. I theoretically am open to all T and K arguments as I think policy debate gets stale after one year of the same debate. I have to warn all debaters though that I do not often vote for them as they are often presented as either a time suck or with unclear components.

Stock Issues: I know this is very basic, but my favorite debates are the ones where the AFF presents a well-researched plan with clearly labeled stock issues and relevant evidence. The NEG then can bring up relevant DAs and convince me that the plan is somehow flawed. The debate should be sign posted, clean on the flow, and use logic or evidence to address all points of contention with one or more responses.

Counterplans: Most CPs are on the table as long as they take into account uniqueness. If you want to adjust the timeframe, there needs to be a compelling reason. There needs to be a clear piece of evidence about the harms of doing something at a particular time. The same logic applies to consult CPs, give me specific evidence about why your proposed org is better.

T/K: I am never sure how to accurately convey my position on these arguments. Let me know the interpretation, violation, standards, and voters. It should be noted, "education" isn't a voter. You have to tell me what education does for us outside of the round. If you're running topicality, you should do your best to address your opponent's case. Too many times, I have heard students run topicality and spend 8 full minutes talking about how they had no time to come up with an adequate response. Not only is that speech terribly repetitive, but it also seems self-defeating. Topicality should be used to bridge legitimate gaps in research, but even in the worst case we are all still capable of debating with logic. A legitimate K will demonstrate an actual barrier that prevents a contextual discussion.

Decorum: I absolutely do not need us to treat each other like we are in MUN. However, we need to set basic rules of respect.

Prior to the round, please email me your case at mattmmak@gmail.com. I am a new judge - for me, the arguments that make common sense are more important than complex arguments that are too theoretical. Please avoid running theory and avoid using jargon or acronyms - speak clearly and don’t rush. I am very pragmatic and don’t tend to believe blown-up impacts.

Hi! I’m Caroline, an MVLA Parli alum. I’m not super familiar with LD or PF, so you might consider me more of a lay judge for those events, but I’ll try my best. As a general note, always be polite, respectful, and have fun! If you have any questions about my paradigm (some of the jargon might not make sense yet and that’s totally okay!), feel free to ask me about it before the round. I look forward to judging your round!

For novice division rounds, I think the first two sections (Misc. & Case) will be most applicable – so I would recommend mostly just reading those sections. If you’re planning to run something more technical, the rest of my paradigm might be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Speed - I’m probably good with some speed, but if your opponents aren’t, don’t spread just to skew out your opponents – meanwhile, don’t be afraid to call slow on your opponents

• Layering - For tech rounds, tell me how to layer please + give legit reasons to why

• POO’s - I’ll try to protect the flow but please still call point of orders

• Speaks - I default 28 probably; I’m not basing your speaks off of how well you actually speak to present your arguments but off of strategic argumentation

Case

• Signpost as much as you can (this includes responses)

• Give warrants for your links. This doesn’t necessarily mean you should be citing sources; just provide logical analysis and evidence

• Weighing!! - please weigh your arguments – tell me why your arguments matter/why you win the round + terminalize your impacts

• Probably collapse

Theory

• I default competing interps > reasonability. This doesn’t mean I’ll only be receptive to that, but try to provide a solid reason if you’re going for reasonability

• Read RVIs probably – I pretty much always read an RVI in my rounds, but you should have a reason why RVIs are good or bad on either side (unless you’re not reading an RVI)

• Tell me how to layer the theory shell. I don’t really care if you say the exact words “a priori” but tell me why I should be evaluating it.

• Friv theory - I’m down to vote on it but my standards are somewhat high for this? Make sure you’re contesting the counterinterp and have warrants for why you access your voters!

Kritiks

• I’m probably not the best judge to evaluate your k but you’re absolutely free to go for it if you want (I’ve run a few ks but not very many; I’m generally a case debater)

• Don’t run kritiks just to skew out your opponents

• Don’t read ks you don’t understand (aka don’t just pull from a backfile – it will be obvious)

• Assume I don’t know your lit base → explain clearly

• Have good solvency warrants

• Make sure you’re both layering well + especially in voters, tell me how to evaluate the round

Tricks

• I’m honestly still figuring out how I feel about these (I’ve only ever read tricks in one round) but if you really really want to read them, please be clear about how I should evaluate them!

I am an engineer by profession. I focus on impacts like feasibility, solvency, and net benifit. I prioritze clear, persuasive, and logical arguments over speed or complex evidence debate.

Email: vnguyen@headroyce.org

Experience:

-MS S & D coaching sporadically since 2000, HS S & D coaching since 2018. I have no direct debate experience but do have a fairly substantive understanding of argumentation and speech and debate as a language arts and literature teacher for ~three decades.

-Most experienced with MSPDP and HS Parli. Have a working knowledge of Congress, Novice Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, speech events like Impromptu, Extemp, Informative, Interpretations, and Original Oratory.

-My main interest in various speech and debate spaces is to collaborate with others, especially in leadership positions, to improve storytelling and critical thinking and make those space less transactional and more accessible and transformational. I believe speech and debate is a fun and challenging HOW, but for us to get something of lasting value from this educational activity, we need to be clear about our WHY to this HOW. My contributions to the speech and debate community, specifically to CHSSA and NPDL as a board member, has focused primarily on event-specific curriculum and MSPDP and Parli judging training/feedback.

-Have judged at tournaments as need be at all levels and various forms (Novice Policy, Student Congress, SpAr, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parli. I have also judged many PF and Parli mock rounds for Head-Royce and scrimmages between my school and others. However, I usually prefer not to judge at competitions because I am often busy helping to run Parli tournaments or are coaching my teams.

Philosophy/Pedagogy:

-Paramount for me as a longstanding MS-HS English literature teacher/debate and former volleyball coach since 1996 are sportsmanship and discourse that deepen understanding of debate and the human condition as tied to current issues of the day. My hope is that we (kids and adults alike) can become more compelling storytellers and informed critical thinkers who can contribute to our representative republic, to overall humanity. If all that sounds very kumbaya uptopian, it is, and thus worth fighting for.

-I am more of a truth over tech judge, but do value tech. I flow extensively by case and by speech on one or multiple sheets as appropriate to levels and events like Parli, traditional LD and PF. My main interest is to be kind, attentive, and not interventionist and to capture as best as I can, the balance between the trees and forest of the stories and the clashes.

-You will most likely earn my ballot if you are courteous, organized, and nuanced. Signpost consistently; focus on depth over breadth; prioritize arguments; make explicit your syllogistic logic chain; impact out using PMT(CR)S (probability, magnitude, time frame, cyclicality, reversibility, scope) calculus; clearly tie it all arguments back to the weighing mechanism; and ultimately tell a compelling story with a thematic thread featuring your 1-2 voters.

It might be helpful for you to know that I can handle speed but only to a certain extent, I am frankly averse to spreading—speed at the cost of cogency and clash is simply neither strategic nor compelling for traditional non-policy events.

Lastly, please focus on topic content. I do believe, however, that debate is a game (akin to chess), and I enjoy clever use of theory, especially in the form of double binds. I am also open to K args., notably if they are resolutional. Don't run a K, esp. a K Aff in Parli, unless you really can explain it well and ideally link it to the round topic.

lay judge

i judge based on what i flow. spreading will hurt your case, because if I miss something you say, i can't help you. weighing clearly. no theory no ks, probably wont understand what you're saying at all. the more confused i am, the less likely i will vote for you. strong points & rebuttals + clear weighing wins the round.

Hello, my name is Muideen Popoola. I am a debater and public speaker.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating which includes British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary debate and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I prioritize when speakers attack only the arguments and not attack fellow speakers, I also take equity issues as important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely

Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles or speakers that speaks at average pace or gives me a heads-up before speaking extremely fast.

In debate, I value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do. Also effective use of fiats, counter prop and other important techniques.

I also appreciate when summary speeches prove why speakers win, by emphasizing on the arguments, justifications and logical implications, no new arguments should be brought up.

I also encourage speakers to keep track of time because arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

For online tournaments, speakers are encouraged to turn on their cameras except in extreme situations which they should take excuse for.

As much as possible, I always try to be open minded, take all relevant notes, have clear decisions and helpful feedbacks.

In conclusion, I prioritize clarity, logic, and evidence-based arguments. I value debaters who can effectively communicate their ideas, engage with their opponents' arguments, and demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic. I evaluate debates based on the strength of arguments, rather than personal beliefs or biases. My goal is to provide constructive feedback that helps debaters improve their skills and grow as critical thinkers.

Conflict: I don't have any.

Contact: muideenpopoola1010@gmail.com

Cheers!

I am an APDA debater who has been debating for the past 6 years. I have a lot of experience with parliamentary tournaments on the East Coast, along with some international competitions in BP.

Please signpost! It makes things so much easier for me to follow.

Talk at a comfortable pace as long as you are sure that I can understand you.

Remember to be calm and try your best! Have fun with it, and no matter what the result is you can only learn.

Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.

What I like:

- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.

- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.

- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.

- Framework - I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).

- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.

- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.

-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.

What I don't like:

- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic. I am not a fan of spec arguments.

- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, make sure your K somehow links to SOMETHING in the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 2, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 3, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.

- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.

- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.

- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.

- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.

Speech

I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.

Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.

Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.

Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.

Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.

NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (PF, LD, CX, etc.):

Do:

-Include a value/criteria

-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)

-Communicate when you are using prep time

DO NOT:

-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)

-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other team’s case substantively)

I will vote for the team that best upholds their side’s burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.

EMAIL: krietveld0@gmail.com

Over 10 years of collective experience as both an NPDA college debater and coach.

Case: I mostly prefer case debates involving arguments surrounding the core topic literature of each side.

Theory: Theory is best used as a protection against abuse or your opponent attempting to gain *unfair* advantages. That said, I generally have a high threshold on theory debates and prefer theory be reserved for legitimately egregious situations.

Kritiks: K’s can be a useful strategic option assuming you have strong link arguments that connect well to the topic, and you are able to explain how your K controls the internal link to the harms of that particular topic.

Personal Identity: Please do not run personal identity based arguments in front of me as I very likely do not know you or your identity personally and cannot verify (or disprove) any of the claims you make about said identity.

General tips:

• Rebuttals are best used for comparison of impacts and warrants/supporting evidence.
  
  
• Impact out your arguments using Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, and Reversibility.

2018: I've gotten out of debate coaching as a full-time profession in order to focus on my research on the tenure-track. I'll still write and speak on debate in journals and conferences, respectively. I'll likely judge at some local high school tournaments in South Texas and may do some judging in the Texas area at both the high school and college levels. I very much enjoy debate and will still be a strong advocate for it. I'll just be doing less of it as a career. In 2018, I was fortunate enough to win the Forensic Educator of the Year for Southern States Communication Association and Coach of the Year from SE CEDA. I also won the John Cameron Turner Memorial Novice Critic of the Year Award from SE CEDA, which probably means more to me than any debate award I or my debaters have won. I will still be a good judge in race, cap, and high theory debates, but my reading on the topic won't be that great.

2016 Updates: I continue to think debating is good for education and that many different styles of debate have merits. I still prefer critical arguments to policy arguments, although much to my chagrin, I'm not the worst policy/policy debate judge. Judges are not neutral when they enter a room. We should stop pretending they are. I prefer certain arguments, I've read more critically certain books, I've written things I stand by, and I find some debates more interesting than others. I do not think debaters should have to agree with me or only read arguments I'd like to read, however. I was a 2N/1A most of my life so that's often how I think about debates. I never was to sure what that meant, but since it's in many people's philosophies. I judge a lot of debates in all divisions, although now I'm judging a lot of novice debates as a result of coaching novices. Novice debate is important to this activity, and we should be kind to our novice debaters. I recently returned from Barcelona studying decolonization and also spent significant time in Germany working broadly on communication tragedy. I don't care what pronouns you use to describe me. I use he/his/him. I appreciate people not using "guys" as a gender neutral pronoun and that you make a good faith effort to call people what they want to be called. It's also important to engage the substance of arguments you might not like, which probably means framework arguments are not always the best in front of me, although I have voted on them. I think Sean Ridley and Erik Mathis are good judges and good people, which may say something about me as a judge or a person. I'm currenty reading a lot of Lacan, which has always been the case, and thinking through some issues of leadership and social mvoements. Have fun!

2015 Updates: I continue to be a good judge if you run arguments that address issues of race, capitalism, and ideology. I recently completed my dissertation on George Jackson's Soledad Brother and I actively write about race and (rhetoric, law, capitalism, counter-terrorism and national security). I am starting a new policy team this year so that will likely reduce the critical literature I am personaly reading, although that ought not change my judging philosophy. I continue to think debaters should be nice, fair, and honest. I want everyone to come away from this activity invigorated, feeling as though they are better thinkers, students, scholars, and activists. Although I am clearly a critical style debate person, I am more than competent at judging traditional policy style arguments. Just don't expect me to call for and read your 10th uniqueness card with the same interest I'd put into a piece of Anthony Farley, Charles Mills, or Carlos Mariategui evidence. And yes, I did cut a piece of evidence and cite it as "Saint Alloysius, 400 A.D. or something" for my NDT-qualifying team of GSU NS. I'm a fan of the odd. Have fun, be smart, argue passionately!

The philosophy... more or less...

Explanation and analysis over random card reading. I’m open to hearing any arguments and not disinclined to vote on any argument. If your strategy is politics DAs and Counter Plan theory—read ‘em. If you love reading Deleuze, Foucault, and Derrida—read ‘em. I thought about writing my philosophy for every conceivable argument, but that would probably lead folks to think I had a strong preference for or against arguments which really is not the case. All critics come into rounds with experience in different areas just as debaters come into rounds with different majors. It’s your job to convince me, not my job to tell you what I want to be convinced on. I am ultimately a kritik-oriented debater and coach. I prefer to hear these rounds and am probably more qualified to judge these rounds. I love performance, memory politics, poststructuralism, identity politics, and feminism particularly.

Debate is subjective, but I try to come into each round with as open a mind as possible. That being said, I have a strong background in critical theory, critical race theory, feminism, and rhetorical theory, but that does not predispose me to vote for poorly constructed arguments that claim to engage those ideas.Because I’m more involved (reading and writing) in those areas, I probably am a better critic in those rounds.Again, not because I have a preference for those areas, but because that’s where a lot of my intellectual energy has gone over the years.BUT, I also worked the in DC Metro Area in government affairs, so I have an on-the-ground sense of how politics actually works.

Your ultimate goal should be to convince me why you win the round.That can come about using not only many different arguments, but also many paradigms. I value your performative consistency and gender neutral language.Debate is an open canvas upon which debaters can construct communities of action. The ballot can be a tool, but before you assume I’ll vote on something, you need to explain why your paradigm makes sense in the round. If you believe my ballot sends a message, explain why I should feel the same way. If you feel like we are policymakers, then explain why my position as critic upholds sound policy decision-making. Inspire me to take action with you.

I prefer not to call for cards after the round, but if you feel I must, then provide some darn good reasons. Explain why your evidence is better. What are the qualifications of your author? The warrants behind her or his arguments? The inconsistencies of the other team’s authors? I have a good flow, but I’m not perfect. It’s very important to me to flow things in the appropriate place and make sure that I can follow arguments from start to finish. I value debaters who are organized. I usually don’t flow CX, but if I hear something that sounds particularly relevant to the resolution of the round, I’ll jot it down.

Speed does not matter, but speed should not be a substitute for persuasion. Sometimes speed gets valued over persuasion, and that’s not helpful for anyone. It’s great that you read 7 internal links, but how do they matter to the round and why are they better than your opponent’s answers. Don't make speed a substitute for argument.

I've voted on T, DAs, CPs, Ks, Turns, Perf con, Condo, the various Specs. For theory, I am very concerned with education in the debate round. I find a lot of theory unpersuasive, but if you can explain why the other team hurts your, their, or my learning in this round, then you'll be in a good place.

Have fun, be humorous, don’t take yourself too seriously. This is a competative activity, but it's also a fun activity.

Other debate information…

Coaching Experience:

Director of Debate, University of Central Florida (17-18)

Director of Debate and Forensics, Illinois College (15-17)

Assistant Coach, Georgia State University (11-15)

Assistant Coach, United States Naval Academy (09-11);

Director of Debate, T.C. Williams HS [VA] (07-12),

Assistant Coach, West Virginia University (03-04)

Head Policy Debate Coach, Midlothian HS [VA] (00-03)

Debate Experience (all policy): Middle School, Tallwood High School [Virginia Beach, VA], University of Richmond

Education:

Grad. Cert., University of Central Florida (women's studies)

Ph.D., Georgia State University (communication, track: rhetoric and politics)

M.S. Troy University (international relations, concentration: national security affairs)

J.D., West Virginia University

B.A., University of Richmond (history, urban practice and policy, rhetoric and communication studies)

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a fourth year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD, as long as your clear. I prefer traditional slow PF, Parli, local circuit LD, but both people want to spread and be technical, I guess it’s fine.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks, but I think I'm less inclined to than most, especially in PF. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap and neolib; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I think I’m more likely open to anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to competing interps, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse or reasonability convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason).

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and like it when your contentions clearly link to the topic (eg I’m not a fan of a 50 States CP paired with a DA without a topic specific link). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

Dhruva Sood(he/him)

Head-Royce '24

USC '28

Put me on the chain: Dhruvasood1@gmail.com and HRSDebatedocs@gmail.com

Tech > Truth, I will vote for anything under the sun. I think judges saying tech over truth but then listing arguments they won't vote for is a little ridiculous (barring anything violent, racist, homophobic, etc..). I have very few predispositions about debate, and will vote for any argument if it's technically won

I went for the k on the aff and neg for three years in high school, and still mostly go for it in college, so I am most experienced with clash and kvk rounds, but don't lean either way in terms of opinions or voting record.

I am least experienced with competition debates - I understand everything that's happening here, and have been in or judged these rounds, but have much less experience compared to anything else

Evidence quality matters to me, I will read every card mentioned in the final rebuttals

If you have out-of-the-box/new/wacky arguments I will probably enjoy the round more than the average judge

I think you can only insert rehilightings if the relevant words have already been spoken out loud by either team, otherwise, I think you must read the rehilighting, Debate is a communicative activity which means you have to speak your arguments.

The death k is 100% justifiable to be read in round

Racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.. = Auto loss + Lowest speaks possible

You can stop the round or debate out ethics violations, this is probably good to ensure more teams call them out. If you debate it out should have clear cuttings of the rules of the tournament and what an ethics violation is/looks like, from there you have to impact out why it matters.

Be funny, I am very easy to make laugh and it will go a long way

Funny references to current or past Head-Royce debaters = +.1 speaker points

Hello everyone,

I am a parent judge who has judged a number of tournaments over the last year. Here are a few of my tournament do's and don'ts.

1. Truth> Tech. I value logical linking and clear explanation over technical debate. I find that tech is often used to skew participants out of the round, and as a judge, I find it somewhat difficult to follow. With that being said, I will take theory into account if there is a legitimate abuse, and if I can understand what is being conveyed (basically, you can make your point surrounding the abuse clear without the overuse of jargon). I will never layer tech first unless there is a very very clear reason why, articulated by the side that is running it.
2. I am not a huge fan of excessive jargon. I prefer not to have to decode another language while you're speaking. I am familiar with many of the basic terms, but at a point, it detriments your point and gets lost on me.
3. Weigh, weigh, weigh, and terminalize. When I look to my flow at the end of the round, I tend to look at impacts first, and then logical linking. You have to tell me why your arguments matter, otherwise they are just words that you're saying.
4. Please be kind to each other!

General

Please signpost everything and impact out. Please be civil to one another, I will vote you down if you're intentionally racist, homophobic, etc.

Oregon Parli

I judge parli from a policy perspective. I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc), and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real-world consequences of voting in a certain way. For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety," tell me what natural policy consequences will follow and the impacts of those consequences.

If it's a policy resolution please have a plan on aff or at the least a specific approach to affirm.

NPDL Parli

I'll vote on just about anything but conditional counterplans. If you take up everyone's time to read and have your opponents start argumentation, I expect you to follow through. We don't have enough speeches for it to be fair ground for Neg to kick stuff. I'm fine with speed, K's, theory etc. I vote on the set WM and Value of the round, so if you don't set either, I'll go point by point on the flow. So whoever has the most standing after clash will likely win. Finally, please don't refuse all questions in the round.

Policy

I'll listen to and vote on everything. I like creative Ks and FW debate.

High School LD

I won't mark you down for spreading but I will mark you down if your judge or opponents can't understand/follow your argumentation. If someone is yelling clear you have to slow down! I don't flow cx.

PF

I know part of PF is the culture of respect, but you don't need to waste time with thank-yous before every speech. I don't flow cross or questions. If you find something significant, please bring it up in a speech and tell me where to put it on my flow. Other than that have a good time.

Please ask me if you have specific questions or would like clarification.

About:

American University MA '26 | Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, Congressional, and World Schools Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. Formerly, I was the Director of Debate (2021-2024) for Crystal Springs Uplands School. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

WS Update (last updated 01.15.24 for Harvard Westlake)

Quals: 2019 NSDA WS Invitational Octofinalist (California Coast Gold); judged WS at various SoCal invitationals incl. La Costa, Chuck Ballingall, and Jack Howe

Method: I will follow the NSDA or tournament scoring system in WS. That being said, I tend to holistically evaluate the whole of argumentation in the debate and will likely weight content and strategy more significantly when adjudicating over close rounds. Still, a team can pull ahead on this question with the high allotment of style points, possibly making my argumentative evaluation of the debate less significant to the outcome of a given ballot.

POIs are not flowed. Time yourselves.

Things I am looking for:

1.Questions of Layering/Framing: I think the practical and principled distinctions can be quite helpful for any potential collapse strategy. Speakers 1 & 2 should be clearly differentiating on what level their argumentation exists—whether one or the other, both, or neither. Meta-framing questions that engage the scope of the resolution are helpful places for me to start when evaluating content and strategy. Definitions can be particularly helpful here in order to clarify the scope of relevance for a given set of substantives or examples.

2. Strategic Collapsing/Crystallization: Speakers 3 & Reply need to be doing some amount of collapsing and crystallization of the key points of the debate. Which substantives am I flowing through to the end of the debate? Has there been sufficient defense put on a substantive neither side is talking about anymore? Tell me where I should be looking for my evaluation of the ballot, and why certain substantives, warrants, and examples ought to be prioritized over others. WS tends to be judged by a number of people who do this work on behalf of the debaters—I request strong and explicit direction about which arguments I should prioritize in evaluation and why.

3.Strength of Warrant/Example: While I don't require you to have robust citation mechanisms, please articulate how and why your examples connect to your interpretation of the resolution. It should be very clear to me why you are talking about a particular example and what the justification for discussing it is. To this end, I still think WS as a debate event requires some level of impact analysis. The amount of historical context and warranting you can provide compels me to consider your substantive more easily.

Feel free to read over the rest of my event-specific paradigms for a sense of other argumentative defaults, not preferences. I'm pretty open-minded and appreciate an organized flow with substantive clash. Best of luck!

PF Paradigm (last updated 10.04.24 for Northwestern)

Email for the email chain: jtelebrico23@cmc.edu

General

• Feel free to read any cool, funky cases on this topic in front of me. See the last bullet point of the paradigm if you're concerned about prep-outs, etc.

• Can flow any speed, so feel free to go as slow or fast as you'd like.

• Feel free to read my Parli paradigm for more nuanced thoughts on argumentation and strategy.

• STOP stealing prep time during evidence exchange. I will interrupt debaters if I see Second Speakers exploiting evidence exchange to prep further. Have your cards available, set up the email chain before the round (yes, I want to be on it), and use the prep time that has been allotted to you. The amount of prep-stealing in debate has become unreasonable and structurally unfair. You can even use this bullet of my paradigm as fairness uniqueness for a theory argument. Don't steal prep in front of me.

Evaluation

• Every argument requires a warrant for evaluation—articulations of "extend xyz author/statistic" are insufficient without accompanying warrants. Please extend and implicate warrants in both summary and final focus.

• Weighing (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility) is also SUPER IMPORTANT. Start doing this in summary. This also goes beyond just impacts—do link-level weighing and collapse pls.

• I maintain that I won't flow crossfire. However, you may generate offense off of concessions (they're binding!) or contradictory answers made in CF ONLY if you explain and strategically utilize the indicted claim to generate meaningful clash.

• [ask me what my thoughts are about GCF before it happens]

• Second Rebuttal absolutely should begin to frontline. First Summary doesn't need to extend defense unless second Rebuttal begins to frontline args. However, it's probably strategic for second Rebuttal to answer first Rebuttal and start frontlining. Defense is not sticky, except maybe between first Rebuttal and first Final Focus.

• If it's in Final Focus, it has to be in Summary. This does not mean collapsing Final Focus from a single 'conceded' warrant or sentence in Summary without proper analysis.

• Impacts should be terminalized. I prefer numbers to scalar impacts, which should always be contextualized within the evidence. In other words, I'd much rather vote on an impact of "affects 10k people" over "iNcrEaSe oF 500%."

• Impact framing is also very cool.

Tech

• I think theory, kritikal, phil, and other forms of tech argumentation are severely underutilized in PF due to both structural and perceptual bias concerning speech times and the nature of these arguments. Open to hearing any kind of argument on these layers (and do uplayer the argument for me) but I am otherwise agnostic concerning my evaluation of them—I would not consider myself a tech hack judge, I just think a lot of case debates are done poorly and these rounds are fun to judge. Debate flight seems infinitely regressive so don't be afraid to run these arguments in front of me.

• I think strategies like IVIs being read on anything your opponent does or represents in-round are advantageous insofar as maximizing paths to the ballot.

Evidence Ethics & Speaks

• To minimize intervention, I won't view the email chain or card doc (but still add me!) unless a particular card defines the round—and debaters should be explicit that I should do so (e.g. "Look at their x ev, it doesn't say y"). I prefer cut cards but don't mind paraphrasing so long as you can have a substantive theory debate.

• Do not use any surveillance or tracking technologies like MailSuite/MailTrack on the email chain. I will not begin the round until an email chain without them has been created and I'll tank your speaks for even having me click on the initial email in the first place.

• However, I do reserve the right to intervene on behavior that I find explicitly oppressive and morally reprehensible; if it's implicit or you're just excessively rude in general I will simply tank your speaks.

• My updated speaks average aggregated across both PF & Parli is a 28.7 [L/H = 27/30; n=234; last updated 09.24.23]. Most people will get a 28+.

• Speech docs are very appreciated (jtelebrico23@cmc.edu). I will exclusively use these documents in the context of accessibility (e.g. to clean up card citations on my flow) in the debate round and not for coaching or sharing purposes.

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round!

Dear Debaters,

My name is Luca Vicisano, I am a UC Berkeley student studying Political Economy, I use he/him pronouns and today, I'm going to be your judge.

For some background, I competed in Parliamentary Debate throughout high school. While I did debate mainly in the West Coast, I was largely a non-technical debater and limited my technical work to CPs and top-of-flow debates. I can follow most debates (on/off flow, plans and cps, defs, topicality, theory, etc. etc.) however I'm not well versed in K lit, so if you choose to run one, please explain it clearly.

TLDR:

Judging style:

• Tabula Rasa unless your argument clearly doesn't make sense. Arguments must be adequately warranted and logical.
• truth > tech

Do's:

• Debate well
• Be good people
• Be respectful
• Explain any jargon, theory, and background necessary for both sides to have a fully functional and educational debate.
• Be organized
• Please have clash. Weighing is great and all, impact calculus is fine, but what I look for is the attacking of links and using warranting to disprove the other side. This is NOT restating your own contentions.
• Be nice to opponents
• Have FUN. Make jokes, make me laugh, have a good time (counterintuitively, debate is for fun, not for fighting)
• Take POIs!!!! Nothing proves a good debate more than spontaneous response and clear communication between both sides.

Don'ts:

• Spread
• Be rude
• Rely on empirics (evidence/stats) to back your case (evidence is fine, but I prefer warranting)
• Be boring

In all, I want you all to have fun, I want to have fun, I want you all to be nice, please ask me any and all questions after the round.

Specific Stuff:

I would potentially vote for a K as long as it's:

• a) presented in a semi-lay style or doesn't rely on an understanding of jargon + k lit
• b) not spreaded
• c) each part is clearly explained
• d) well warranted and linked to opponent's advocacy or resolution
• e) not claiming a far-fetched impact
• f) interesting, thought provoking and unique
• g) only used against a team at least semi-familiar with K's

CP's:

• I love CP's however, I get slightly annoyed when straight opp is perfectly debatable
• I don't buy monetary exclusivity or wtv its called
• I don't buy conditional CPs, if you propose one, I will just take it as your CP

Plans:

• Make your plans creative (without being non-topical)
• Make sure your plans are understandable
• Clear up any vagueness in resolution

Rebuttal Speeches:

• DONT summarize the round line-by-line
• Prove why you win under both interpretations if theres disagreement on top of case
• WEIGH, do the work for me. I don't like having to grapple two impacts while deliberating — I want to be able to vote asap and not have to sit and think for an egregious amount of time.

POIs:

• I will reward speaker points for taking POIs and responding to them well.
• Take as many as you want but this is NOT encouragement to take every POI, please don't disrupt the flow of your speech for a POI.
• In my opinion (not advice) ~2 or 3 is a good number to take for the first three speeches (PMC, LO, MG). ~1 is good for MO.

---------------Most Recent Update: 3/30/2024 (NPDL TOC) -------------

TOC-Specific

TOC is the biggest opportunity for students to learn about different styles of debate. I expect y'all to try to learn. Refer to Luke DiMartino's section on "Ballot" for what I expect to occur when styles clash. Refer to Sierra Maciorowski's section on "Pedgogy" for my thoughts on technical accessibility. Refer to Sam Timinsky's section on "Lay vs. Flow" for my thoughts on tech v. lay in the debate community as a whole.

This is also the biggest opportunity for you all to connect with one another! For the first time in 5 years TOC will be in person so make friends with your competitors and be kind to each other! Feel free to reach out to me after the round for my thoughts more deeply on issues (or, after the tournament, if you'd like coaching (NYC is expensive :( )). I am a huge debate nerd so I love it when y'all have a good time and enjoy this beautiful activity. Have fun! :D

If you open-source your TOC prep you get automatic 30 speaks. Everyone should do it anyways....

No consistent coaching, but had intermittent mentorship from Trevor Greenan, Cody Peterson, Javin Pombra, Ming Qian, and Sam Timinsky. Philosophically similar to Esha Shah, Sierra Maciorowski, and Riley Shahar. Try not to pref both me and lay judges; splitting ballots at TOC leaves no one happy, and punting one of us will make both of us sad.... :(. I enjoy super techy intricate debates!

My pronouns are on tab now; please use them and your opponents correctly! Will drop speaks for first infraction, will drop teams after that.

Lastly, I've gotten really into Feyerabend. If you are interested in the philosophy of science (especially on topics about science/technocracy/AI/etc.), I highly recommend his work! There's an old Feyerabend K backfile I found that I can send to people who are interested!

Background

I did parliamentary debate for 4 years w/ Cupertino, but I'm pretty familiar with LD and PF. Currently coach parli and PF. Coached extemp for 2 years and policy intermittently. Debated APDA a bit but wasn't my cup of tea. I was a 1N/2A if that gives you any indication of my biases for speeches.

I mostly went for K if I could, but good on T and fast case. For Ks I usually went for Daoism or Asian Conscientization. If anyone wants a rough copy of either of the Ks feel free to message me on FB or email me (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com). Tried to get K-DAs off the ground but didn't debate enough rounds for it to stick :( Also if you're from a small school message me or email me for a copy of my Small Schools K.

TL;DR

- be cool, have fun, dont be a jerk

- weigh lots

- clever arguments make me very happy!

- no friv T, don't like tricks (although this I think has fallen out of favor since I've graduated)

- *not* a K hack despite my background. This is because I love Ks to death. If you are a *K debater* please pref me because I love a good K debate, but don't use a K just because you think you can get a cheap win. If you would like to get better at K debate, please pref me because I love teaching better Ks in parli :D

- seriously pleaaaaaaase be nice each other, it makes me sad when debaters get upset and debate should be fun!

Preferences

These are not hard and fast rules but general guidelines for you to see how much work you'll need to put in to win the argument. I have found that the farther I get from being a competitor in high school debate, the fewer real preferences I have and I could not care less about most issues. In other words, if it's not mentioned by name in the list below, I don't have a default and *will* flip a coin absent argumentation. If it was that important to your case, you should have mentioned it!

My number 1 preference is for you to try new things and have fun. My partner always said that if you're not having fun you're not doing it right, which I have always found to be true. Also don't be a jerk (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc) or you'll drop instantly.

I evaluate the round systematically.

1) Who is winning framework? How should I evaluate arguments at all?

2) Who is winning the layering/sequencing arguments? According to the debaters, what order should I evaluate the arguments? Absent that, I default to my stated defaults.

3) Who is winning offense on each layer? When I hit a layer where there's a clear winner, I vote for that team

In other words, I look at layers from top to bottom (e.g. K > T > Case, Advantage 1 > DA 2 > etc., etc.) and as soon as one layer isn't a tie I will just vote for whoever is winning that.

Some things that always make me happy

• Clever plans/CPs: this usually means very good specificity that lets the Adv/DA debate get very intricate
• Ks with very specific links and interesting solvency arguments! Choosing fun solvency advocates is good for everyone!
• Theory with unique standards and approaches (e.g. going hard for reasonability or the RVI, standards like "creative thinking" or "framers' intent", etc.). I'm probably the most lenient tech judge on the underview issues in theory.
• Consistent sign-posting throughout the round. If the 2N says something like "go to the warrant on the second internal link on the Econ DA" I'm going to be really happy that you kept that up the whole round
• Collapsing to fun stuff (e.g. on weighing: timeframe, sequencing, etc.)

Defaults

- If it's not in the final speeches I'm not voting on it.

- Default to probability > magnitude. Bonus speaker points if you collapse to timeframe

- Unwarranted arguments will have very little weight in my mind; if I don't know why something is true I don't know why I should buy the argument: source w/ warrant > sourceless warrant > warrantless source > sourceless and warrantless (this last one isn't an argument at all).

- Don't care if there's a source citation in parli

- Signpost! If I don't know where you are, I'm probably not gonna be able flow it!

T

- Real-world education impacts are the way to my heart, default to Education over Fairness

- Default to RVIs valid, but you need to read a particular brightline for the RVI to function

- Default to Reasonability (esp. Content Crowdout, though I don't think people run this anymore (if you do bonus speaker points))

- Don't use "small school" arguments unless you're actually from a small school or can justify how your program is disadvantaged. I'll give leniency on this but please don't be disingenuous -- and being on the circuit for so many years I think I've developed a good intuition.

K

- KNOW THE SOURCE MATERIAL WELL AND HOW IT ENGAGES ESPECIALLY W/ FOREIGN POLICY TOPICS: most K's (especially generics) are written with the US in mind and are *not* applicable to other places, be sure that the K functions elsewhere before you run it

- PLEASE PLEASE have good links that actually connect to the specific articulation of the Aff.

- If it's a funky K, go nuts, but please explain stuff (for the sake of me and especially for the sake of your opponents) or I won't know what you're saying

- K Affs are lit, just make sure there's actual ground for both sides (for all the Negs out there, email me if you want a copy of arguments against K Affs)

- If you read a decent K out of the 2AC you'll get a 29.5 at least.

- If you read theory saying NEG Ks are not legitimate, I will drop you

- Familiar with most Ks except for super pomo stuff. I'm not sure what the place for identity Ks are in the debate space and I have not judged them enough or been engaged with the community enough to be educated but please be cool about them if you do want to read it and make sure there's an actual valid opposite side

- From Riley Shahar's paradigm: "I tend to think that debate is not the best space for arguments which are reliant on the identities of competitors. I am certainly willing to listen to these debates, because I know from experience that they can be necessary survival strategies, but making assumptions about other people’s identities is a very dangerous political move which can force outing and be counterproductive to revolutionary action."

Tricks

Go slow and explain them super clearly (probably defeats the point of running them but hey it's your round).

Speaker Points

Do work on 30 speaks theory, don't just throw it out there for the sake of it. Speaks are entirely assigned based on strategic decisions made in-round (i.e. I don't care how you say it as long as you say it). 25 or lower for problematic speech/behavior.

APDA Specific

- default to beat-the-team on tight calls

- don't be purposefully obtuse in POCs or you're getting tanked (and I'll be more lenient on tight calls and case args)

- pragmatic > principle, but easily swayed

- run a K, run theory, run condo, go nuts, just don't call it that if it's against tournament rules

- please POO shadow extensions: if it's not extended in the MG, I consider it new (even if it's in the PMC)

Non-Parli

- I don't flow cross

- Read full cites or I'm not flowing it (in particular this is @ PF)

- Cards with warrant > cards without warrant = warrant without card > claim without warrant

- Bonus speaker points if you disclosed on the wiki

- PF: If it's in FF it needs to be in summary

- Add me to the email chain (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com)

Misc.

- Call "clear" or "slow" if you can't keep up; if you don't slow down enough when the other team calls it several times you're going to get dropped with tanked speaks. I will also call clear/slow as necessary

- If you say something blatantly untrue, I'm giving the other team the argument (the bar for this is very high though so just please don't lie).

- If you tell me to check the argument, I'll do it but I won't treat it as a "lie" unless it's egregious (in which case I can tell either way)

- Go slow on plans/CPs, interps, alts, etc. Have copies prewritten for everyone. For online tournaments, have texts in the chat right after you say them. We're online! It's so much easier to pass texts! (boomer grumblegrumble)

- For Points of Order, tell me explicitly which argument is new and why (if you're calling it) and where it was on the flow in which speech specifically (if you're responding). I will let you know whether or not I think it's new unless it's in outrounds. Trust me when I say that it is too much work (usually) to protect against new arguments.

- Virtual POIs: put them in the chat, please be mindful of the chat if you're the one speaking

- Tag-teaming: go for it, but both speakers must state the argument

I am neither a lay judge nor a tech judge, I consider myself somewhere in between. I do flow and take notes on every speech (for P.F I do flow crossx as well) but I'm not familiar with technical jargon (don't hit me with T-shells or perms.)

What will win me over:

1) If your case is logically sound AND you have successfully defended/extended/collapsed to prove to me why I should be voting on your case and not theirs.

2) If you explicitly tell me why your case is better, or in other words you MUST WEIGH, specifically on impacts or whatever weighing mechanism/value is being used in the round. If you don't tell me what impacts you have, I have nothing to vote on.

Presentation Norms

1) I will greatly appreciate it if you signpost. It helps me keep track of your case and it will help you too as you go through your speech.

2) Please do not speak too fast. I do tolerate some speed as long as you don't start rambling off at a million miles a minute.

3) Be civil. Don't be rude or disrespectful to anyone in the round. Specifically for P.F, please be kind in crossx. There's a fine line between assertive and aggressive.