Pearson,+Bryan

Last Updated: April 11, 2013

I graduated from UC Berkeley where I competed in parli (NPDA) for four years. This past year, I judged parli for UC Berkeley and worked with the team throughout the season. Before that, I debated policy for four years in high school.

I have never judged a high school parli round, however I did compete at 2 or 3 tournaments while in HS. While I have judged some policy debates in the past, I have only judged two tournaments this year. I have judged a bunch of LD debates, but only one tournament this year.

Basic Questions/FAQs:
 * I have no problem with Speed. I will only say clear once.
 * I don't mind if you prompt your partner or if you tag team cx, but if you do either of these poorly it may affect your speaks.
 * You can use your prep time however you like.
 * I don't care if you use your cell phone as a timer. If you use it for any other purpose (texting, etc.) it will negatively affect your speaks. Protip: airplane mode.
 * You may flow and read cards off your laptop. If you use it for any other purpose (facebook, etc.) it will negatively affect your speaks.

General Argument/Debate Preferences:
 * I have no preference for which arguments you run or which strategy you choose.
 * While you should tell me how to evaluate every argument you're going for by your final speech, if you do not tell me otherwise I will default to net-benefits on case and competing interpretations on T.
 * If you choose to do a performance you must explain why it matters in the round/context of the debate and you must explain the role of the ballot. Every performance debate is different and I will not know how to evaluate your position if you do not tell me. Keep in mind that, without framework/explanation of how your argument functions, you have no offense in the traditional style of debate.
 * Theory positions should have an interpretation. Don't just say that Conditionality is bad; give me the actual rule of the game. For example: the aff can only fiat the USFG, they fiat individual people, this is bad because...

HS Parli:
 * I do not enforce the trichotomy (the belief that certain topics are fact/value/policy). I believe the debaters should decide this question themselves in the round if necessary.
 * I would like you to call points of order in both rebuttals if you feel it is necessary.
 * I do not time roadmaps, but if you and the other team would like to I don't mind.
 * Points of order should proceed like this: one team calls a point of order and gives a concise uninterrupted explanation of their objection. The other team gives a concise uninterrupted response. The judge decides if the point is or is not well taken. Ongoing argumentation or interrupting the other team will negatively affect your speaks.
 * You do not have to stand up at any point in the debate, including points of information or points of order. Choosing to do so is, of course, ok as well.
 * I do not enforce protected time. If you do not want to take their question that is totally fine, but if you would like to answer a question I don't think it's fair to enforce this arbitrary rule.
 * You do not have to engage in the "parliamentary pageantry", including rounds of thank yous, but if you would like to that's ok. Just be respectful to everyone and you will not lose any speaker points.

Policy:
 * I have not researched this topic and therefore do not know anything outside of common knowledge. Acronyms can be very confusing if you don't know what they mean.

LD:
 * I have been around debate enough to be familiar with LD style value-criterion debate, but please do not assume I know the nuances of the theory behind it.
 * When you run a K or CP, explain to me how the arguments matter in lieu of the value-criteria. If you reject the value-criteria style of debate and choose an alternate framework, make sure to do some comparison with the aff framework and tell me how the arguments function. When there is heavy framework debate at the top and then no articulation on how the CPs and Ks function within those arguments the debate becomes very difficult to adjudicate.
 * I have not researched this topic and therefore do not know anything outside of common knowledge. Acronyms can be very confusing if you don't know what they mean.