No speed. I value eloquency - dont sound like a robot

I debated 4 years in high school, mostly doing parli. I will vote for any arguement/any type of arguement if you successfully convince me that I should. Make clear, and thought out impacts. Don’t use speed if you can’t do it well, it will just make me miss more of your analysis. Have fun and do your best to win.

Main points:

I will vote on anything, but it's impossible to be completely Tabula Rasa.

I like interesting logic and dislike generic arguments. I will try to filter for these biases but you should be aware of them.

Please read all plans, counter-plans, alternatives, other advocacies, and roles of the ballot twice and slowly.

I believe that I have to personally believe real-world impacts are good or non-existent to vote for them (more on this below).

I assign speaker points based on persuasiveness.

Call the POO, I don't protect the flow.

I default to competing interpretations, but am very open to reasonability arguments.

Experience:

I competed in middle school MSPSD for three years, high school policy for one year, and high school (California) Parli for three years. I went to TOC, did well at invitationals, etc. I also debated in APDA/BP at Stanford for three years and coached Sequoia High School's parli team for four years.

Case Debate:

Case was my bread and butter as a competitor. I don't have any particularly hot takes about it. Structure is useful. I find generic arguments a bit tedious, though I acknowledge their strategic utility.

Kritiks:

I generally dislike the generic way people use kritiks to gain competitive edge. That being said, I will still vote for one if you win it, and if you have a relevant Kritik, please deploy it just as you would any other argument. I only ran one kritik ever in high school debate, and it was an argument of my teammate's and my own creation, so I am not familiar with any of the lit bases. (I also think completely original Ks are interesting.) If I don't understand your argument, I will have a hard time voting for it.

Theory/T:

My partner and I almost exclusively ran theory when our opponents were actually abusive. That being said, I will vote for frivolous theory if you win it. I default to competing interpretations, but am less anti-reasonability than most judges. I don't believe you absolutely must give me a specific set of criteria that define reasonability, and I think that the debate doesn't have to end when one team says "reasonability leads to judge intervention." (If it does end there, though, I will vote on that argument.) I think potential for abuse is a real thing, though of course you have to warrant it in round like anything else. I don't care if you're condo unless the other team does.

Speed:

I'm fine with speed up to a point, and will shout "clear" or "slow" if you're unclear or too fast. I am willing to vote on speed theory, just like any other argument. Please also shout "clear" or "slow" during your opponents' speeches if you need to.

Points of Order/Protecting the flow:

I don't protect the flow (meaning I won't discount new arguments in the rebuttals unless you call a Point of Order). Please call as many POOs as you think necessary. There were several times as a competitor when I didn't call POOs because I was worried about the judge getting annoyed, and I don't want you to feel that way. If you think they're making a new point, let me know. I will rule on every POO as "well-taken," "not well-taken," or "under consideration." After maybe the 5th well-taken POO, I will just ask you to stop calling them and announce that I am going to start protecting the flow for that speech, in order to save time. The exception is on panels, in which case I will not rule verbally on POOs.

Non-Technical Debate:

I am absolutely willing to hear a non-technical round, as long as this doesn't mean it's an unorganized round. I don't want you to feel like I will be biased against you if you don't have technical debate experience. If you are a non-technical debater and feel intimidated by theory, kritiks, and spreading, I encourage you to watch this round in which a team of non-technical debaters beat a team spreading and running a kritik, just with logic and good argumentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoQ9kiCi1ho

Real-World Impacts:

If you win any real-world impacts in the round, one of two things has to happen for me to vote on them. Tl;dr at the bottom.

1. If you win in-round that voting for you will affect the real world, and I believe personally that voting for you will affect the real world, then I have to personally believe your impacts are good to vote for them. This is because if I believe that voting for you will actually affect the world in a negative way, the result of the round matters less than the negative effects that voting for you creates. So, for example, if you argue that voting for you increases the chances of a Marxist revolution, and I believe that is true, I will vote against you because I personally think a Marxist revolution would be bad, and I can't let my ballot increase the chances of that, even if you win the argument in round. Just as you would argue that actual good done to the outside world comes before in-round or in-debate impacts, actual bad done to the outside world comes before in-round and in-debate impacts, and I have to do what I believe is best for the world first.

2. If you win in-round that voting for you will affect the real world, but I don't personally believe that voting for you will affect the real world, then I will just vote on the flow, because there's no moral imperative for me to affect the real world if I don't actually think voting for you will affect the real world. So, for example, if you argue that voting for you increases the chances of a Marxist revolution, and I don't believe that's true, but you win that it's true in-round, I will vote for you even though I think a Marxist revolution would be bad, since I don't actually think that voting for you will cause one.

Tl;dr: So basically, if you want to win a real-world impact argument, you need to either:

1. convince me personally that you have real-world solvency and convince me personally that your impacts are good, or...

2. Win real-world solvency in round, but fail to convince me personally that you affect the real world.

Political Spectrum:

I highly value viewpoint diversity. I think that there's a lot more room in debate for politically diverse arguments than we usually hear. I encourage you to make arguments from political perspectives different than your own.

Non-verbals in round:

I'm a somewhat reactive judge. If I'm nodding when you're talking, you're doing well. If I look confused, please explain further until I nod or otherwise indicate that I understand you. If you talk really fast, I will have to sacrifice some or all reactiveness to focus on flowing. I will also be less reactive when I'm on a panel.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaker points based on persuasive speaking abilities. This doesn't mean don't spread, I've seen many people maintain persuasiveness while speaking fast, but if spreading causes a detriment to your persuasiveness, then it will be reflected in your speaker points. What is persuasiveness? Hard to define, but it includes smart argumentation and the effective delivery of that argumentation. I know this is subjective, but I don't know how it's any more fuzzy than whatever standards most flow judges use. If I'm nodding my head a lot while you speak, you're probably doing a good job. Major points for humor.

I won't intentionally doc you speaker points or the win for making racist, sexist, etc. arguments unless the other team gives me a reason to...I think it's pretty weird that this is a norm since it is clearly judge intervention. I will, however, doc speaker points for being rude or demeaning to your opponents in round.

If you speak exclusively in double and triple negatives, I will give you a 30 and personally seek out your other judges for the rest of the tournament and encourage them to give you 30s as well.

Run what u want. Speed ok. weigh.

bkgrd: former Campolindo debater, won the toc in 2018

I’ve judged/coached most formats at this point, but my personal experience is some hs parli and then BP for Berkeley.

Debate is a game, so I’ll vote on anything. While I competed in less technical events in college, I enjoy complex rounds if they're interesting so please do try new things.

Speed's okay but slow down for tags and expect me to miss some nuance if it's very fast. If your opponents ask you to slow down, I expect you to give them the opportunity to engage.

Otherwise, run what you want! I'm very far removed from current trends in debate, but I love strong + analytical warrants, good linking, and fun strategic decisions. I tend to find super stock DAs and Ks or a heavy reliance on evidence quite boring.

TL,DR:

I value good arguments, persuasive speaking, and good clash. Don't exclude your opponents and don't run ridiculous arguments that harm the educational nature of debate.

Background

I debated for Berkeley High from 2015-2018, taught at SNFI twice, and coached for Berkeley High school.

Case

* I will default to net benefits

* Organization is key: tagline your arguments, signpost, and construct voting issues carefully

* Weigh your own arguments and explain why they matter

Theory

* Don't run unnecessary/frivolous theory, especially (!!) if it is intended to exclude your opponents

* Please demonstrate proven abuse (or have a very strong potential abuse argument) if you do run theory

Kritiks

* I am not a huge fan of Kritiks, so the bar is going to be pretty high to get a ballot from me on one

* If you decide to run a K in front of me, your opponents should also be down for a K debate and you should explain very clearly what the actual impacts are

Speaker Points

* I give speaker points based on clarity, strength of arguments, and persuasiveness (being funny/creative will boost your speaks)

* If anyone in the room (reasonably) needs to tell you to be clear or to slow down multiple times, your speaker points will suffer