Read what is pertinent for you and feel free to ask for clarifications before or after round:

Pronouns: They/Them/Theirs

Background: Hi! My name is Heidi Adolphsen and I graduated from Whitman College in 2023. I debated at Boise High School for 3 years in Policy, LD, and Congress before receiving a scholarship to debate for the following 4 years at Whitman. I competed at the National Level in NPDA and am most comfortable judging Parli. I also competed in IPDA and speech events, but am less familiar there.

Overview: I am best at judging NPDA and Policy compared to other events. I try to adapt my judging style to the preferred style of the event. For instance, because Public Forum is supposed to be an accessible and quality-focused debate, I judge based on clarity and cohesiveness of arguments. Since IPDA is speechier, I put a slightly higher emphasis on speaking style. For all events, I am comfortable and familiar with the technical aspects of debate. Things like presumption, apriori, offense and defense, and other topics that pertain to the strategy of debate matter to me. If your event doesn't typically bring those ideas into the debate, don't bring them up for my sake, but know that the theories behind how debates are won and lost are how I keep my judging consistent and fair. I will listen to practically any arguments you throw at me, give me your whacky stuff and I can handle it.

Big Tent Online: I probably have never seen your event before unless it's Parli, Ipda, PF or LD. I will be trying my best to keep up. I prefer if you time yourselves and your opponents.

Round behavior: Be on-time, respect your opponents and debate against the best version of their arguments. I will judge based on my flow, so I recommend you flow as well. I will not listen to arguments for genocide and will stop the round if racism, xenophobia or transphobia etc.. transpires.

NPDA:

Positions:

Kritik: Yes, I love your K's on either side of the debate. K affs are better if they are rooted in the resolution, but I will listen to justifications for access to non-topical versions of the affirmative. The framework should be informed by your methodology and not just as a way to define your team as the winning team. ("ROB: vote negative to..." is one of my least favorite debate mechanisms). Your links should be contextualized to in-round indictments and are stronger than generics. An alternative that solves the harms of the K must be present in order for you to win your K. I don't love rejection alts in the same vein of not liking "ROBs: vote negative to..." Permutations of the K alternatives are fine, but I will need substantial work on how the perm functions especially if the links aren't resolved. If you are introducing something like Lacaan, D&G, Beaudrillard, Psychopolitics etc. please explain your lit base well. I may have read the theory a while ago, but I will not remember unless you remind me. I also don't like voting for your case if I recognize that your theory comes from someone that caused mass death to others. If you don't specify an author when asked, but I recognize the author, I will be frustrated. Your opponents should be able to learn from and grasp every concept you bring into the round even if they can't win against your arguments.

Procedurals/Theory: Yes, I love your T's. I've noticed a strong trend of either using T exclusively to overwork your opponents or going all in from the LOC. It seems the latter to be the stronger strategy, but won't discredit the time-suck strategy. If you don't collapse to one T, and it's still hanging around by the end of the debate, it probably won't win you my ballot. I'll listen to any procedural but I'm more sympathetic to some than others. Under/over spec arguments seem counter to the affs right to parametrize so I'm less likely to vote there, but will still listen and am willing to vote if compelled to. A-spec, F-spec, E-spec are all fine. Topicality is great. Do not run a bunch of them please. Cross-applying standards and voters across T-sheets without new contextualization is not compelling and makes my flow so messy. Conditionality is an acceptable argument if there are multiple negative advocacies that cause the aff to double-turn themselves. Articulated abuse is always better than potential abuse. I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise told. I will probably never vote on MO perm theory.

Disadvantages: All Disadvantages need to have specific links to the affirmative. Unique disadvantages with smaller impacts are more likely to turn my ballot than generic disadvantages with weak links and high magnitude impacts. There are different types of Politics DA's and I prefer some and despise others. If you have too many internal links like a wish-washy claim about how a certain group will react against the plan, I will probably not be convinced. If you have highly specific scenarios, with well-researched and empirically accurate reactions, I might be. If you have mechanical or agenda politics that affect how a policy will go into play, not dependent on how reactions will play out, I will be pretty happy.

Counter-plans: I am fine with most types of counterplans including +1, PICS, timeframes etc. Theory arguments help to justify CP's strategic legitimacy. I also think mutual exclusivity competitiveness should always be preferred over functional competitiveness derived from net-benefits or disadvantages. Permutations are great and must be accompanied with a justification and are best supported by theory responses as well.

Other Specifics:

Speed: I am willing to hear some speed. If you have a spready case, go ahead and go fast and I will slow you until you are at a comfortable pace for me, or until I realize you are set on a pace and won't go any slower. Therefore, you can go as fast as you want, but it is not always the best strategic choice because I won't be able to flow your arguments as well.

Speakers: I flow the words that come out of the designated speakers mouth. If you are reading a performance and your partner has to read something in a different language or say something you can't, that is something I will flow to the best of my ability, but you should flag that so I know to flow it.

Status of Arguments: It is your responsibility to ask, and for the other team to answer.

Texts: All Plans, ROBS, theses, etc. should be read twice and made available for the other team on paper or in chat

Flow: Please give me an order, sign-post and give me time to switch to the next argument.

Identity Politics:Talking about personal experiences should absolutely be welcomed and appreciated in debate platforms. However, I think that forced disclosure is a real problem and if your opponents have to enter an unsafe space to engage with your argument then we might have an issue.

A little about me…

She/Her

I’ve been involved in debate for the last 5ish years (four in high school, one in college). I did LD in high school and debated for a year on the parliamentary debate team at Berkeley in NPDA/NPTE open parli, mostly running ks and k affs (this girl loves queer theory).

TL;DR:

tech > truth (but please don’t make me vote on this)

I will vote on anything as long as it’s not oppressive/violent - so k affs, theory, topicality, ks, literally anything. Please make the round interesting and debate how you wanna debate! That said, if you love a good topical debate I’m totally down for that too. Win your arguments on the flow, weigh them concretely, and I’ll be happy to vote you up. Don’t worry about an argument being frivolous as long as it’s not just a hail mary (weigh it properly and I’ll vote on it). Please, please, please don’t just say “perm do both” etc. Give me a reason why the perm is better and them against the other team’s arguments. Don’t feel like you have to perform. I want you to have the debate that you want to have and that is valuable for you.

Also, please do not misgender your opponents.

**I’ve been out of debate for about a year, so I can still follow most spreading but if you are just unintelligible I will ask you to slow/clear. SIGNPOST. Please listen to me or I will be sad.

————————————————————————————————————————————

Case:

- I love a good turn.

- Please make advantages/disadvantages well-warranted and clear. I default to preferring two clear and specific disads to four.

- I default to durable fiat.

CPs:

- I love advantage CPs (as long as they are well structured and the advantage is weighed against the aff)!

- I default to perms as tests of competition unless you tell me why.

- I don’t love contextual competition :/

Ks:

- I am relatively well versed in K lit, but that DOES NOT mean that I’ll automatically understand all your warrants so you don’t have to explain them. I like this lit and I want the debate to happen on its substance, not because your opponents don’t understand your warrants because they are blippy and confusing. This will make me sad. I am most familiar with Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, and a lot of queer theory so do with that what you will.

- If you choose to run theory against a team rejecting the resolution, know that I do generally tend to lean towards the impacts of the K rather than the impact of the theory. That said, I would love to see a good theory debate as long as you explain what you mean by fairness and education very clearly. I would prefer not to vote off of a fairness argument that is dropped but never weighed/explained.

- When I was debating, we mostly ran Ks and K affs so don’t be afraid to run these arguments in front of me.

- I will default to evaluating the alt as a CP if you don’t give me a reason not to.

- Please, please, please don’t just say “perm do the alt and the CP” etc. Give me a reason why the perm is better and them against the other team’s arguments.

- I love K affs. That said, I will definitely not automatically vote up a team for running this. I would LOVE to see a thorough, precise framework T debate… just make sure you give me a reason why education and fairness are more important than the impacts of the K

- Please don’t just run a reject alt…it makes the debate less interesting.

- I have a high standard for a framework T violation. You cannot just say “a k aff is unfair because we couldn’t prepare for it”. You must have a well-warranted, formatted T shell that picks apart how a K aff makes the debate unfair. I will lean towards the impacts of the k aff outweighing the standards. That said, it is very possible to win FWT against a k aff (and I would love to see you do it)! I just need a very clear, substantive FWT argument.

Theory:

- I ran a lot of theory when I was debating, so my threshold for “frivolous theory” is very low. This means that I default towards potential abuse v. proven abuse. I’m going to vote on the best norms for debate, and I think that potential abuse captures this better than proven abuse. I love a good theory debate, but I prefer that the responses and extensions are substantial and precise.

- I’ll pretty much vote on anything if it is well warranted.

- Theory should be responded to with a counter interp/counter standards and a “we meet” when possible.

- Weigh your standards. I will be skeptical if you just say “they didn’t respond to x standard” and leave it at that.

- I am skeptical of new theory in the PMR.

- I default to dropping the debater over dropping the argument. If you want me to just drop the argument, tell me why and weigh it.

- I default to theory being a priori to the rest of the debate. If you don’t want me to evaluate it this way, I will be skeptical unless your argument is well warranted and weighed.

- Don’t assume that fairness and education are automatically voters. You must tell me why they are voters in the specific context of the shell and the violation in the round. I tend to lean towards the idea that education and fairness as voters only benefit some debaters, so I will be skeptical if you don’t explain it to me).

Speaks:

- I am very skeptical of speaks as a concept. I believe (and have experienced) that speaks usually reflect race, gender, and sexuality biases more than they reflect in round “performance”.

- I will use speaker points to reward strategic decisions and penalize disrespectful behavior. The winning team should expect 29.0-29.5 and the losing team should expect 28-28.5.

Other:

- Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read:https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- Ask any questions before round. My old debate partner and beautiful human being June Dense has heavily influenced my debate philosophy. Look to her paradigm for more information on what I’m about.

<3

2018 NPDA National Champion

I can judge pretty much anything. Just be clear and have fun.

For additional speaker points, consult the below recipe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Before you strike me, ask your DoF how many times I beat the teams they coached. Now, rethink your strike and pref me higher.***

Ingredients:

• 1⁄2 cup butter
• 2 tablespoons cream cheese
• 1 pint heavy cream
• 1 teaspoon garlic powder
• salt
• black pepper
• 2⁄3 cup grated parmesan cheese (preferably fresh)
• 1 lb fettuccine, prepared as directed

Directions:

1. In a medium saucepan, melt butter.
2. When butter is melted, add cream cheese.
3. When the cream cheese is softened, add heavy cream.
4. Season with garlic powder, salt, and pepper.
5. Simmer for 15-20 minutes over low heat, stirring constantly.
6. Remove from heat and stir in parmesan.
7. Serve over hot fettuccine noodles.

Debate paradigm

[UPDATE FOR NPTE 2024] Time has past me by and I am now two years removed from competing in parliamentary debate. Inevitably, I am not as sharp as I used to be, and in the interest of fairly judging a round, I will clear if I can't parse your words. Other than that, I suppose that everything else in this paradigm still stands.

I love debate in all its forms as an intellectual activity and I want to participate in an educational and transformative culture. As a judge, I consider it my job to walk into the room, adjudicate a discussion regarding the resolution, and render a decision at the end of the round. That just means I default to being a lay judge, but if one or both teams makes an argument to the contrary, I am happy to adapt to whatever is going on. Debate what you want, and I will listen. However, I evaluate arguments as claims with warrants – you must have evidence to support your assertions.

That laissez-faire attitude naturally has its limits. No demeaning or derogatory language should be used and we should be kind to one another. I will tank speaks for such behavior and will escalate my response to the nature of whatever bad things may happen.

[WEIGHING] On impact weighing, I tend to follow standard Timeframe/Exponentiality/Magnitude/Probability framing and I weigh arguments on strength of warrant. That means that every argument should have a claim and evidence supporting it.

[CASE DEBATE] Absolutely a big fan. Please have clear impacts and weigh them, as well as a plan text, which should be repeated in-speech and passed as a text if requested. I am accustomed to the plan/solvency/advantage (with UQ/Links/Internal Links/Impacts) format but please do as you wish in that regard.

[KRITIKS] I think that critical debate is central to the unique education of Parli debate, however our format permits the proliferation of a lot of nonsense. I should know, I ran it myself. Please think self-reflexively about your words. You must patiently explain what “symbolic reversal of the Subject’s will-to-power” means just as a policy debater must patiently explain “Baku’s petroleum reserves check back against European interference in Nagorno-Karabakh” means. I have a high threshold for entirely excluding a team’s impacts from the round on account of your FW, and impacts should be well contextualized to the link scenario, which should also generate competition.

[THEORY] I am just as happy to flow theory as anything else. Please have a clear interpretation (and repeat it!) as well as a violation of the interp, standards for why it matters, and voters for why I should care. MG theory can be a good part of a debate, but I tend to think that one condo advocacy is reasonable, but happy to hear otherwise. It must be collapsed to in the PMR.

[IVI’s] I believe that the concept of an IVI (Independent Voting Issue) is critical to check back for wrongdoing in the round, and that the IVI has been weaponized as a way to access the ballot more easily in a round. This is harmful to the competitive environment and more importantly, to those seeking redress for serious events. Do not tag an argument an IVI without a clear articulation of what the problem is, its impact, and why it must be independent of my evaluation of the rest of the flow (it should not be implicated in your framework). I have a high burden for voting on an IVI that is not collapsed to in the PMR/LOR.

[SPEED] I lay no claim to being the best interpreter of speedy debate, but I can flow effectively at 250-300 wpm. I will clear debaters when their speech becomes uninterpretable or unclear. If you do not slow yourself when competitors, or myself for that matter, request it, then I may cast my ballot on that issue because it signifies disrespect and the prioritization of exclusion as a competitive method over education and community.

[MISC] I competed for four years in NPDA parliamentary debate at Whitman College, placing 4^th at the NPTE in my senior year. If you would like to know, I debated everything from strict policy debate to running several theory shells to running high-theory Ks. I am a snob about running Baudrillard correctly, my favorite policy area is Southwest Asian and African defense policy, and I feel somewhat knowledgeable in anarchist theory, ecological critique, and Black critical literature (Wilderson, Moten, Hartman, Sexton, Butler). Bonus points for running something fun and innovative, because I think that innovation and novelty are two incredibly important things in debate.

Background: I competed in parli and a little policy in college and have been coaching debate (mainly Parli some dabbles in NFA-LD and policy) for almost 10 years.

Policy/CEDA and NFA-LD: I do not have speed over the internet. Go as fast as you want through your cards but please slow down for your tags/cites/analytics/per-written blocks. Yes I want to be in the speech drop or email chain I flow on paper so I also need pen time. (I will call slow in prelims. I will NOT call slow in outrounds unless asked to)

Please give me judge instructions. I take forever to make decisions because there often a bunch of arguments that I don't know what to do with. I want to judge the round the way you want me to so please lay that out/tell me what I should evaluate first, which arguments matter, etc. The is especially important for K/performance debate.

Kritiks/K-affs/Performance debate Love all of it (even when I don't understand it)! My favorite kind of debate! K v K is especially awesome! That said, please assume I know nothing about your lit/authors/performance/etc. Alternatives need offense against the perm (I've voted for a lot really terrible perms because defense alone isn't strong enough)

Policy affs/DA/CP. It's cool, do your stuff. Please assume I know nothing about the topic.

T/Framework I'll vote on either way in policy v policy rounds, debate it out. In T/FW v K, the easiest way for the K to get ahead in front of me is impact turns. I'll almost always buy that the aff can use their case as offense/weigh against against the K. Beyond that, something has to go very wrong for me to vote on FW against the K. I'm much rather you went had offense against the K-aff/K than tried to argue why it's bad here. (Side note: the more I'm in academia the more I want alternate epistemologies/methodologies. That means good analytics can take out carded evidence in K debates for me).

The later in the day we are the worse my explanation of the RFD becomes.

Happy to answer any other questions.

she/her

Experience: I've been involved in debate for 10 years. Four years of National Circuit and Local Circuit High School LD at Chatfield Senior; four years of College NPDA/NPTE Open Parli for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley; three years of coaching experience for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley and Campolindo High School.

TL;DR: The short version is that I strive to evaluate the round as technically and objectively as possible. Read whatever arguments you want (provided they are not rhetorically violent), win them on the flow, and don't be oppressive/violent. Ks and k affs are great, theory is great, CPs are great, disads are great, case affs are great. Never worry about me auto-rejecting an argument because it's 'blippy' or 'frivolous', just make sure it's sufficiently weighed.

______________________________________________________________

Long version: The following details apply to both parli and LD, and if there's a paradigmatic difference between the two events, I will make note of it.

Philosophy: The principle that guides my judge philosophy is that judge intervention, while inevitable to some degree, is generally bad and should be minimized whenever possible. Paradigms that welcome judge intervention open the door for judges to make decisions (sometimes subconsciously; sometimes explicitly) on arbitrary criteria like presentation and rhetorical appeal. Evaluation of these criteria frequently comes down to race and gender, as well as being unfair and uneducational to the debaters in the round, so it should be avoided as much as possible. I do believe there can be instances of judges intervening in rounds for good, but on whole, as a general model for how debate ought to operate, I think judge intervention does more harm than good.

Three immediate implications of this:

[1] I default to strength of link to determine the truth value of arguments, warrants, empirics, etc. That means I don't care how "blippy" an argument seems, only whether it is contested; if an argument is conceded, then it has 100% strength of link and therefore is true. I will not intervene on the truth value of arguments, warrants, and empirics, for the reasons explained above (intervening on whether arguments are "true" sets a bad precedent about what the role of the judge is in debate rounds), and because I don't trust myself to know enough about the world to be able to verify the minutia of your arguments.

[2] I generally use paradigms that prioritize 'tech' over 'truth.' To this day, I am still confused about what 'truth' means as the opposite of 'tech.' How does the judge evaluate a round "truthfully"? Does that just mean the judge intervenes on the truth value of arguments (see point 1)? How does the competitive nature of debate factor in to 'truth' paradigms? If there are some arguments that are not open to debate ('true' arguments), wouldn't the more 'true' side have a massive advantage over the other? As a result, I think tech debate paradigms are more fair and educational, so I default to them.

[3] I use speaker points to reward good strategic calls and execution, rather than performance or rhetorical appeal. I don't like evaluating elements of debaters' in-round performances, such as persuasion, affect, rhetoric, speaking style, etc (again for the reasons above). However, if you are rhetorically violent in round, your speaks will be far lower.

All of the other details of my paradigm stem from these three points.

General:

- I have no preferences about the following: rejecting the resolution, conditionality/multicondo, 'cheater' CPs, PICs, Ks, 'frivolous' theory, etc. I am more than happy to evaluate these strats, but I think your opponents get to at least try to read theory in response.

- Personally, in order of most to least enjoyed, I prefer Ks, then theory, then case/advantages/disadvantages debates. However, my preferences will never factor into my decision, and I am more than comfortable evaluating any of these types of arguments.

Delivery/Speaks:

- I'm very comfortable with speed, but I know it can be a barrier to teams as well. I will default to evaluating speed but if your opponent asks your to slow or clear, please listen to them. I also don't think tech debate is intrinsically tied to speed; it's possible to have a technical debate that is not fast if speed is a barrier to teams. This means a) tech is not a reason why speed is good, and b) speed is not a reason why tech is bad or inaccessible.

- Don't worry about "performing well" in front of me. As previously mentioned, I will not give speaks based on performance.

- I will say clear as much as I need and I won't penalize speaks for clarity. I use speaks to reward good strategic calls, execution, and well-written files.

- I will not lower your speaks for calling points of order/information, so call away!

Policy/Case stuff:

- I default to believing in durable fiat.

- I default to evaluating your advantages through net benefits and util/some other form of consequentialism unless you specify otherwise.

- Specificity is good! I would much rather vote on your super specific investment bubble disad than your generic government spending disad.

Counterplans:

- I like CPs, especially well-constructed/creative advantage CPs.

- From the general section: I have no disposition for or against condo of 'cheater' CPs. Feel free to read them, but assume your opponents get to try reading theory about them.

- I default to evaluating perms as tests of competitions, but I will evaluate them as advocacies if you give me a reason why.

- I prefer arguments about functional competition and competition through net benefits to arguments about textual competition.

- I default to no judge kick, but I will evaluate it if you make the arguments.

Theory:

- I love theory :)

- I default to potential abuse over proven abuse, but feel free to do weighing between the two in round.

- I have a relatively low threshold for what counts as abuse on theory. Since I default to potential abuse, I vote for the better norm for debate between the interp and the counter interp. This means I am very comfortable voting on 'frivolous' theory and potential abuse.

- I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I think it's hard to evaluate reasonability without a brightline for what is considered to be 'reasonable.' I also don't know how to decide what is reasonable without being interventionist (see the judge intervention section).

- I default to dropping the team on theory, but I have no disposition between dropping the team or the argument.

- I default to theory being a priori to the rest of the debate.

- I default to fairness and education not being voters. This means you have to explicitly read fairness and education as voters in order for me to vote on theory; I will not "assume" they are there.

- I have an extremely high threshold for 2AR/PMR theory.

- I have an extremely high threshold for reasons why case impacts (advantages or disadvantages) should come before theory.

- I default to no RVIs. That means you have to make the argument that theory is a reverse voting issue, I won't just assume that it is. However, I love RVIs and think they're underutilized right now in parli.

Kritiks:

- I love Ks and K affs. I see myself as primarily a K coach, judge, and former debater.

- I have a good understanding of most foundational critical theory, so don't be afraid of reading your arguments in front of me. Read your pomo nonsense; read your more structuralist positions.

- I care a lot about the quality of Ks. I really love Ks that are dense, well-written, and demonstrate a clear understanding and commitment to the lit base from which they're pulled. I don't love Ks that are nothing more than an assemblage of arguments you think are strategic. Use file writing as an opportunity to show me that you've done your homework. Obviously I won't hack against a K I think is poorly written or anything, I'll vote on the flow, but I might decrease your speaks if I think your K is particularly bad.

- As a debater, I tended to reject the resolution more than I defend it, but I am perfectly happy evaluating rounds either way. From above: I think you're probably able to reject the resolution, but your opponents probably get to try reading theory against it. For what it's worth, all else held equal, I think I probably err towards the kritik on the question of weighing k impacts vs fairness and education (55-45), but I think the reason why is because teams frequently fail to explain why concepts like 'fairness' and 'education' matter in the context of the framework/impacts of the K, thus losing if the aff frames out the interp. If you can read framework and with this debate, you will probably win my ballot.

- I default to epistemic modesty over confidence. This means without any in-depth explanation, I'll evaluate your frameout as a reason why your impacts are more probable than your opponents, and why your opponents have a lower probability of solving their impacts. If you want me to evaluate your frameout as terminal defense, or a reason the k is sequentially a prior question to the aff, you need to do the technical extensions of why that is necessarily the case.

- I evaluate the alt like a CP in reference to competition and the perm; if I should evaluate the alt as more of a performance instead, please let me know and explain what this means in the context of the round.

- I don't love reject alts. I'd prefer your alt to be specific, concrete, and actionable. This is probably my biggest K pet peeve.

- I default to theory being a priori to the K, but I'm extremely sympathetic to arguments that the K should come first for a litany of reasons.

Other:

-Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- I default to presumption flowing neg unless the neg reads (and goes for) an advocacy other than the status quo, but I want this to be debated out in the round.

- I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as "contradictory" arguments; or at least, I think conditionality probably resolves a large degree of contradictions. So, I'm sympathetic to the argument that contradictions don't matter if you kick out of one half of the contradiction. However, if you're uncondo, you do need to be careful not to double turn yourself (for example, by reading an uncondo cap K and an econ DA).

- I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it's always better to call points of order just to be safe. There's always a chance I misevaluate whether an argument is new or not, so play it safe and point it out to me. I won't lower speaks or anything for calling points of order, so there's no perceptual risk.

- I will vote on IVIs, but to be transparent I'm not the biggest fan if they're read frivolously. Specificity is necessary here. If you do go for an IVI, you need to do the technical work of explaining why this piece of offense functions independently of the rest of the flow. Absent some justification, I will evaluate IVIs as a piece of offense on the layer it was read. If you want me to evaluate it as an a priori voting issue, I need framing that justifies this. This isn't to say that I won't evaluate IVIs, but it means that you need to do the work of explaining why it's a priori.

- (Parli) The LOR doesn't have to extend every word of the MO. I think the LOR can largely do whatever it wants to, as long as it's not new. The LOR can never really lose the round, but it definitely can win it.

- (LD) Please include me in the speech doc or email chain if there is one.

- If you have other questions I haven't answered, please ask me before the round!

(Reviewed Jan. 2024) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):

TL;DR- I evaluate arguments which means I expect claims to be warranted and evidence to support the claim be true and reasonable. I think you are entitled to read whatever arguments you choose and I am confident in my ability to keep up intellectually with what you are trying to do, and if I cannot then I will admit why I was confused at the end. Beyond that, CTRL+F is your friend and whatever is (not) covered below I am happy to discuss my thoughts and how it can help you win the ballot.

Most debates I watch these days in parliamentary debate discuss structural and/or systemic violence both on the AFF and NEG. The second most common thing I see is theory of some sort. The best debates I see discuss these issues across the debate (i.e.- how does access to the debate implicate the way folks in the round acknowledge and interrogate structural and/or systemic violence). Debates that often end in frustration tend to silo arguments and retreat from counter-arguments in favor of concessions.

I think the AFF should defend a topical advocacy. This does not mean I believe the AFF MUST role play or defend the state structure of the status quo. I believe being creative in how we imagine what state structures can become can allow us to engage in what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Structures of oppression exist differently across cultures and eras if at all. To me this means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable and as such I think there are excellent justifications (although many in debate may end up half-measures) for why the AFF can be topical AND critically interrogate current political and economic systems.

I think NEG advocacies in parli should be unconditional as the concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. Theory and advocacies are distinct as theory is a debate about what the system should look like and advocacies are defensable changes to the status quo. Theory is distinct from T as theory is about how to debate and T is about the words in teh topic. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof has shifted. Kritik, performance, T, theory, framework, Disads/CP to non-topical AFFs, and Disads/CP to topical AFFs are all open to the NEG. However, I think that the opportunity to indict the AFF in the LOC is often overlooked and many NEG teams allow the AFF infinite offense by conceding case warrants and relying on implied clash.

I think that parli debate is a unique format that allows meaningful engagement. While the things above are beliefs I have about the burdens of the AFF and NEG, the only thing you MUST DO is defend a world view at the end of the debate and if you want to win, you ought be comparative in your impact analysis. Although everything above is essentially how I think you should debate, I recognize that you make choices on how YOU want to debate and I am interested in those choices and why YOU make them. If you have any questions, I have a lot more below and also am happy to answer any questions at sfarias@pacific.edu.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. In terms of theory I generally have a medium threshold for voting T/Spec except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. However, clever theory is great and generic CONDO Bad is meh. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually have a high propensity to solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.

Section 1: General Information-

While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE PROBABILTY MEANS MORE THAN MERELY CONCEDING AN ARGUMENT/LINK CHAIN.

I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips don’t ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say “I didn’t get that”. So please do your best to use words like “because” followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

Section 2: Specific Arguments

“The K”- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality/framework with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that K’s without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.

In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provided a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how I should perform that role will be ahead on Framework.

For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Please also provide a space for your competitors to engage/advocate with you. If they ask you to stop your position because arguments/rhetoric have turned the space explicitly violent then all folks should take it as a moment to reorient their engagement. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not.

I believe you should be able to read your argument, but not at the expense of others’ engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.

Topicality/Theory- I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competing definitions and a question of what debate we should be having and why that debate is better or worse than the debate offered by the AFF. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an AFF who is winning that the plan meets a definition that is good in some way (my understanding of reasonability), if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T.

In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized arguments to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win.

Counter Advocacies- Best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team. It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. ALTs, PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with so long as you defend the solvency of your advocacy. Theory can even be a counter advocacy if you choose to articulate it as such. You should do your best to not link to your own advocacy as in my mind, it makes the impacts of your argument inevitable.

With regard to permutations, if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the ALT/CP alone is insufficient and should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. I do not believe that every link is a disad to the permutation, you must prove it as such in the context of the permutation. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the ALT is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links in both instances as well.

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as I would when I was a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.

LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

Section 1 – General Information

Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 12 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 7 years A/DOF years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific)

General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. I think the AFF should find a way to be topical, but if you are not I then I am sure you will be ready to defend why you choose not to be. I think the NEG is entitled to read whatever they like but should answer the AC and should collapse in the NR. Failing to do one or both of these things means I am much less likely to vote for your strategy because of the primacy of the AFF and/or an inability to develop depth of argument in the NR.

As an academic familiar with critical theory across a host of topics (race, gender, "the state", etc.) feel free to read whatever you like on the AFF or NEG but I expect you to explain its application, not merely rely on the word salad that some of this evidence can use. I understand what is in the salad but you should be describing it with nuance and not expecting me to do that for you. The same is true for standards on theory, permutation arguments, solvency differentials to the CP, or the link story of an advantage or disad. I am willing to vote on any theory position that pertains to the topic (T) or how debates should happen (all other theory). This includes Inherency, or any stock issue, or rules based contestation.

In terms of impacts, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war, or other black swan events, and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.

Last--I do not think you need evidence for everything in the debate. Feel free to make intuitive arguments about the world and the way things operate. I do think its good if you have evidence for 80-90% of your arguments. I will also say that evidence on issues where it is usually lacking (like voters on theory or RVIs) will be weighted heavily if the only response back is "that's silly"

Section 2 – Specific Inquiries

1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?

I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debater’s lack of clarity you will say “clear” (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debater’s excessive speed, I expect you to say “speed.” In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to “report” me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.

2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you don’t find yourself voting for very often?

I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.

3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achievable at the end of the debate.

4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue

Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons to ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all theory arguments are voting issues.

5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?

Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.

6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months

Yes

7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?

I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.

8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?

No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.

9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?

You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way I am told to weigh them. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.

10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?

My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.

Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument it may impact your speaks. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

He/Him

2024 NPDA update: I haven't judged a whole lot of national level NPDA this year but in the majority of rounds I have teams have read some form of RVI on theory positions. I have a very high threshold for these arguments particularly when they are based on some form of time-skew or other procedural link story. In order to win these arguments in front of me I need some sort of parallel or higher framing argument for the RVI as well as impact weighing. In short, I honestly don't want to hear time-skew anymore. RVI's that pertain to other forms of abuse generated by the procedural, such as a team being racist, transphobic, homophobic, are functionally different that the aforementioned RVIs and probably operate as Independent Voting Issues.

Please read a trigger warning if you are reading potentially triggering material. This also goes for IE’s. I am more than happy to answer any questions about my paradigm before round.

I graduated from the University of Oregon in 2022. I spent all 4 years there competing in NPDA/NPTE style debate with my partner Alex. We did pretty well for ourselves and won the NPTE in 2022. Prior to that I did Oregon HS debate and a handful of IE’s.

I am very comfortable with faster, more technical forms of debate, however I was never the fastest flower and will certainly call slow and clear if I cannot understand a debater. I am similarly comfortable to more lay forms of debate. Please do what you would like to do in debate as long as it is not openly racist, misogynistic, transphobic, ableist, or violent towards members of the debate space.

I really like disads and kritiks with materially grounded actions as their alternative. Favorite argument is probably the internal link/impact turn. My threshold for theory greatly increases when the interpretation requires the opposing team to perform a specific action in order to meet. For example, actor specification theory requires a team take a particular action (ie specify their actor) in order to meet the interp while PICs bad theory only requires a team to not do something in order to meet the interp. You can obviously still win spec type arguments in front of me, I will just need a greater link story to justify voting on your impacts. I protect rebuttals but you should still call out new arguments.

While it is the judge’s job to evaluate the arguments given in round it is apparent to me in my experience that judge bias and intervention is inevitable due to indirect, implicit, or missing clash. While I will defer to arguments in the round whenever possible here’s where I will default absent argumentation otherwise.

Magnitude > Probability > Timeframe

Death is probably the biggest impact unless you specifically argue why something else outweighs it

Theory and Kritiks procedurally come before case because they discuss impacts within the debate space.

Fiat is just imagining that something happens so that the debate can be centered around the consequences of the action of the resolution rather than whether the action would happen in the first place.

Competing Interps > Reasonability

For CARD debate: I am looking for strong argumentation relying on both evidence and proper explanation of the implications of said evidence. Coming from an evidence-less format I generally prioritize how well evidence is leveraged to make an argument over the quality or form of the evidence itself. Further I am extremely compelled by comparative impact calculus which entails a comparison between magnitude, probability, and timeframe. CARD debate includes specific ordinances that preemptively answer questions left up to debaters in other formats. This means that theory and topicality operate on the same layer of the debate as case, conditionality is discouraged even for procedural arguments, and that procedurals rely on proven abuse opposed to potential abuse. This focuses the debate on the case level making it the starting point for my evaluation as a critic.

Hey there! Please feel free to ask me about my philosophy before round.

email: david.bo.hansen@gmail.com

Experience

Competitor

2 years - Community College NPDA/IE's
3 years - National Circuit NPDA/NPTE

Coach
2 years - Asian Parliamentary Debate/Public Forum
2 years - NPDA/NPTE
Some BP

My preferred pronouns are he/him/his.

Public Forum Notes

Do you have any strong predispositions for or against any particular arguments? If so, what?

I am open to any kind of argument as long as it is well warranted and reasoned. As a debater and coach, I have worked with all kinds of arguments and tend to think that debaters should read the arguments that they are the most personally compelled by.

What is your stance on student delivery? Should debaters be fast or slow?

I have no strong predisposition for or against speed. I just ask that all debaters are able to comprehend the debate round.

Do you call for evidence in debate rounds? What do you look for?

I call for evidence if there is a dispute on interpretation, but I tend to defer to debaters' interpretation.

What do you tend to think the most important questions in a debate are?

How should the judge decide who wins? Which arguments matter most? Why does my evidence support my claim? I find more specific arguments more persuasive.

I am not prejudiced strongly for or against kritikal arguments.

I tend to think providing a framework for the round is important.

Policy/Parli

General Notes

Specificity wins debates.

(Parli) Interpretations and advocacies should at least be read twice and slowly. Ideally you provide the judge(s) and competitors with a copy.

I tend to believe that the way we discuss the world has real impacts outside of the debate round.

If debaters are debating ethically, I tend to believe that framework arguments are more persuasive than the arguments against it. However, I will vote based on how the debate plays out. If you win that defending the topic is bad and you reject the topic, you will likely win the debate.

An argument without a warrant isn’t an argument.

I tend to believe that recording, sharing, and watching rounds is good for debate.

Theory and Framework

I love a great theory or framework shell. I am happy to vote here. I think a great shell isn't the right buzzwords, it's a specific articulation of how behavior implicates debate as a game.

Counter Plans

I’m uncertain about conditionality. I am sympathetic to arguments about the 2AC/MG being key and difficult. However, I also believe the negative should have some flexibility. The community goes back and forth on condo and I do too. Feel free to run your shell. Feel free to be conditional. I will vote depending on how condo plays out.

PIC’s are usually abusive in NPDA debate, but often strategic and occasionally justified – especially if the topic provides aff flex.

Delay is almost always bad, so are process CP’s.

Kritiks

These are fine. I read them a lot, and went for them occasionally. Please provide early thesis-level analysis. I think most K shells I’ve seen are incredibly inefficient and vulnerable to impact turns. Teams should likely cut major portions of their FW page and instead develop solvency and internal links to the case.

2A/MG’s should be more willing to go hard right (or left) to answer K’s. The aff probably links to Cap, but there is SUBSTANTIAL lit in favor of cap.

K/Critical affs

Can be amazing. However, they are easy to do inefficiently and hard to do well. An aff that is rejecting the motion needs to justify why: 1. Your thing matters more than the topic 2. Why you can’t discuss your thing on this topic OR 3. Why your thing is a prior question to the topic.

On the neg, you need to prove that you are an opportunity cost to the aff. Maybe it’s as simple as you need to keep debating, but you need a reason.

TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.

Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak or shake my hand. I will evaluate the flow with very few caveats. Pronouns: he/him/his.

I did policy in high school and NPDA at the University of Oregon. My partner, Gabe, and I won the NPTE in 2022.

Preferences that matter for my decision

1. Debate is a game
2. Hard debate is good debate
3. Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
4. You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
5. Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
6. Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
7. I default to magnitude first sans weighing
8. Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
9. I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
10. Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
11. Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
12. For the love of god extend the aff
13. For the love of god answer the aff

Preferences that matter but less for my decision

1. Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
2. Condo is good, PICs are justifiable if there are multiple topical affs, CP theory is far from a losing strat
3. Perms are defense, collapsing to defense is suboptimal
4. Going for RVIs is usually cowardice, cowardice is suboptimal
5. Links of omission are weak
6. Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
7. Decolonization is not a metaphor
8. Kritiks are a byproduct of good, nuanced, and educated debate; the existence of ks is good for the activity
9. I have yet to hear a compelling flow-based 'spreading bad' argument
10. Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
11. Science is a very useful ideology
12. Lit based alts are better than alts you made up

HS Parli specific:

Spread if you can, don't if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.

Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution, it is probably germane.

CARD specific:

CARD is a format built around accessibility and subject matter education. I will base my RFD on who wins the flow and all preferences above apply, but it is my job to ensure that cordiality, access, and educational value are maintained. In practice, this means I will be extra cognizant of proven abuse/reasonability, power tagging, overt rudeness in cross-x, and smart use of the evidence packet. It’s still debate – don’t pull punches, but at least make sure everyone in the room is having a good time.

Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com

TL;DR

Debate is a game. Run whatever you want, just win it on the flow. Hit me with your new K, some frivolous theory that you’re worried other judges won’t buy, or literally anything else. Speaks based on execution of strategy.

Background

I'm a recent grad of UC Berkeley who debated in NPDA (tech parli), and now I coach the college team Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley, as well as the high school team at Campolindo HS. My partner Ryan Rashid and I won all three nats in NPDA my junior year, but I have next to no experience outside of parli (just some high school PF and lay LD), so I'm relatively unfamiliar with LD and policy norms. I did and teach pretty much all the stylistic things—equal amount of case, theory, and Ks. I love writing K links, collapsing to tix/elections DAs, and prepping clever T shells courtesy of shoddy resolutions. (The last one is kind of a joke, but also not really.) Point is, I have no preference for what you read, please just do what you're best at. I'd rather see a good K debate with quality clash than a bad case debate, and vice versa.

General note: My philosophy on debate has been primarily shaped by Trevor Greenan, Brian Yang, Ryan Rashid, June Dense, Will White, and Lila Lavender.

Kritiks

- If you're in a hurry you can skip this section—read whatever K you want lol, I don't pick favorites

- My background in academics and debate leans slightly more toward sociology than pomo. I've taken courses (and written Ks) about critical refugee studies, settler colonialism, anthropocentrism, etc., but have yet to truly grasp more than the barest bones of Bataille, for example. That being said, I definitely have experience with pomo—I've read/collapsed to Buddhism, Barad, Foucault, Nietzsche, etc. and competed against Lacan more times than I can count (shout out to the Rice team for that one). So feel free to read pomo if that's your thing, just be a tad gentler with me and don't assume I've read/heard allll the terminology before

- I'm a hoe for really well-warranted links that are specific to the aff and have imbedded DAs/solvency deficits. Also detailed and specific reasons why you solve the aff (if that's an arg you like to go for), either in the impacts or on the alt

- Theses can be helpful for more complex Ks, but def not necessary for your generic cap shell. I often write Ks that draw from multiple lit bases, and for me, a thesis creates a more cohesive story for something that can be kind of frankenstein in nature

Theory

- I love theory. I've been told I have a low threshold for frivolous theory (probably a consequence of too many rounds with Ryan and Brian), but my favorite is topicality, or any other interps that are very specific to the resolution/Aff. If it's clear that your interp had to be written during the 2 minutes before the LOC, that's my jam. Ofc you can read generics too, I'll just be slightly more bored and slightly less impressed

- MO and PMR theory will be an uphill battle with me, the latter most of all because it can't be contested by the other team, which makes my job so very hard, and I am lazy. But if the abuse is truly egregious and didn't occur until the MG/block, or if it's a matter of rhetorical violence, read the new arg and I'll do my best to evaluate it. But please weigh the new shell against the other team's remaining offense

- MG theory is fine, I read it all the time, but I'm also comfortable rejecting it if the Neg wins arguments for why it's bad or in-evaluable

- I don't need proven abuse under competing interps (it's about what your interp justifies, not what you actually did)

- Text vs. spirit of the interp should be debated in-round, and I'll evaluate under whichever is won. If somehow it's relevant but completely unmentioned by either team, I'll default to text over spirit

- I default to competing interpretations, but I'll use reasonability if you win args as to why I should AND if you have a briteline for it, cuz I don't feel like intervening. For example, a briteline (that I think works relatively well) is that I should evaluate whether the aff interp is good or bad based on all the offense-defense arguments read about it, and decide theory based on that, regardless of whether there's a counter-interp text. You could have a different briteline, but either way, explicitly tell me what it is, because "evaluate theory using reasonability" means different things to different people. I would prefer not to treat it as just a gut check, but if you don't define it, that's what I'll assume you mean

- I think theory is an RVI if and only if you tell me that it is, provide warrants, and then win that arg

- I default to drop the arg, although drop the arg sometimes = drop the debater, like for T. But obviously, reading "drop the debater" with even just one uncontested warrant is sufficient for me to change this default

- I didn't do circuit LD, so explain slightly more to me the definitions/implications of buzzwords that aren't as common in parli. The best example I can think of is semantics vs. pragmatics: I NOW know what they both mean, but I did NOT a year ago, and that made it difficult for me to render a decision in favor of blippy semantics first args in NPDI finals. Still read arguments like that if you want, just define and implicate them out, don't assume that I know all the things

Case

- I enjoy niche disads, like a hyper-specific tix scenario, or a biod disad about endangered turtles that live near where the plan happens. These can be hard (or impossible) to find though, depending on the res, so don't sweat

- I also definitely understand the value of tried and tested generics - I read a lot of backlash DAs and consult CPs, and inv con, so it's okay to read that too. Read whatever you think is strategic for the rez

- I enjoy technical CP debate. PICs are fun unless I'm read a shell that tells me otherwise. Same thing for consult CPs, delay CPs, agent CPs, etc.

- Perms on CPs. Make them. Any perm is fine, unless the other team gives me a reason why it's not

- In the absence of explicit magnitude/probability/timeframe/etc. weighing, I default to using only strength of link. In other words, I’m more inclined to vote for arguments that are dropped or comparatively under-covered, but you can prevent this by telling me why your impact is high [magnitude/probability/etc.], and why [magnitude/probability/etc.] comes first

- I love clever case strats that exploit a mistake the other team has made, like collapsing to a straight turn or a double turn. Don't be afraid to do something "risky" like that, I can follow along

Everything Else

Here's some miscellaneous beliefs that I have about debate and will utilize by default; however, I'm willing to evaluate otherwise, even in the opposite direction, as long as you give me sufficient reason to in-round:

- I think unconditionality means you *technically* have to defend the advocacy throughout the round, but that could include conceding defense so the sheet doesn't matter anymore

- I believe that perms are a test of competition, not an advocacy

- I'm not game for shadow extensions that aren't at least mentioned in the MG/MO, even if the argument is conceded. In other words, I think the member speeches should have to extend every piece of offense their team intends to collapse to

- I will do my best to protect during the LOR and PMR, but I don't trust myself to catch everything and neither should you, so call points of order please. I'll rule on all of them immediately, to the best of my ability, because you usually need to know my stance for the sake of the rest of the speech

- New weighing is fine in the LOR/PMR, but make sure it's actually weighing, not sequencing or anything else. E.g., saying "fairness is more important than education because debate could survive without education, but not without fairness" is acceptable weighing, but saying "fairness is more important than education because it's the internal link to education and skews the round" is a sequencing argument that should be read before the rebuttal speech

- I think condo's p dope, so run however many off you want, but also I'll drop you if the other team wins a condo bad shell

- I think dispo is condo in a suit, but if you can get a we meet out of it, go off sis. And if you think they might use their dispo status to meet your condo shell, preempt that in the violation please

- Presumption flips neg, unless the neg reads a CP/alt, in which case it flips aff

- I find “truth over tech” arguments incoherent and self-refuting; “truth” in debate is only ever arrived at through evaluation of the flow (or judge intervention, which I will not do), so in order to convince me that truth outweighs tech, you’d have to win that claim via the tech flow…which seems to indicate that tech still > truth

- I will drop your ass for racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. rhetoric or behavior

- Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. [Added March 29th, 2023.] Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- To pick you up on an IVI, I need reasons why that IVI outweighs all the impacts your opponents are going for

I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA and NFA-LD formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.

Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu

I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you don’t have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I don’t have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.

TLDR

My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that debaters have. I do not expect debaters to adapt to me. Instead, I want you to do what you want to do. I try to be a judge that debaters can use as a sounding board for new arguments or different arguments. I feel capable judging pretty much any kind of debate and I’ll always do my best to render a fair decision that is representative of the arguments I’ve seen in the round. If I am on a panel, feel free to adapt to other judges. I understand that you need to win the majority, not just me, and I’m never going to punish you for that. Do what wins the panel and I’ll come along for the ride.

I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.

The quick hits of things I believe that you might want to know before the round:

1. Specificity wins. Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.

2. I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.

3. I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.

4. I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesn’t appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.

5. I don’t exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.

6. I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.

7. I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.

8. Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.

9. Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.

10. In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.

11. All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesn’t come up, but it can. Don’t say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly.

General

This philosophy is very expansive. That is because I want you to be able to adapt to me as much as you want to adapt. To be totally honest, you can probably just debate how you want and it will be fine – I really do want you to do you in rounds. But I also want you to know who I am and how I think about debate so that you can convince me.

Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophy’s guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).

I flow on a laptop most of the time now. Flowing on paper hurts my hand in faster rounds. If I’m flowing on paper for some reason, I might ask you to slow down so that I can flow the debate more accurately. If I don’t ask you to slow down, you’re fine – don’t worry about it. I don’t number arguments as I flow, so don’t expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.

One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the “pages” of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, “MAD checks” on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.

In theory debates, I’ve noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a “no condo” interp. Basically, if the aff says “you can’t do that because it is bad” and the neg says “it is not bad and, in fact, is good” I do not think the neg should have to say “yes, I can do that” (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think “some condo” interps instead of “all condo”).

I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But don’t use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.

I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.

A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if you’re neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.

NPDA

I’m going to start with the biggest change in my NPDA philosophy. Debates need to slow down. I still think speed is good. If all the debaters are fine with speed, I still like fast debate and want to see throwdowns at top speed. However, analytics with no speech docs are brutal to flow. Too many warrants get dropped. While we have laundry lists of arguments, they are often not dealt with in depth because they’re just hard to keep track of and account for. Our best NPDA debaters could debate at about 80% of their top speeds and maintain argumentative depth through improved efficiency and increased focus on the core issues of rounds, while still making the complex and nuanced arguments we want and getting more of them on each other’s flows and into each other’s speeches. Seek out clash!

NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that author’s position or the argument you’ve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that you’re leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an “even if” argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call and I’ll do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesn’t win evidence debates – the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.

Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds we’re in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We don’t just rely on someone else saying it – we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, let’s do that!

Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if you’ve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution.

Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs don’t always do that. I think “risk of solvency” only applies if I know what I’m risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff does on my ballot to run that “risk” on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain “that’s a presumption trigger because…”.

I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I don’t see that contextualized well and is often just a “risk of solvency” type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.

*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a ‘we meet’ – so ‘aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive)’ is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesn’t work, read spec.

Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesn’t necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably don’t try to get me to judge kick, honestly.

I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between. At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that you can't be untopical, it just means you need good answers. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).

NFA-LD

I tend to think disclosure of affs (once you’ve read them) is good and almost necessary and that disclosure of negs is very kind, but not necessary. The more generic a neg position is, the more likely I am to want it disclosed, but I’ll never expect it to be disclosed. I won’t take a strong position on any of this – disclose what you want to disclose (or don’t disclose at all) and defend that practice if necessary.

Affirmatives should stake out specific ground in the 1AC and defend it throughout the round. I don’t care how you do this, whether it is a plan, an advocacy, a performance is up to you. I think that topical plan debate is often the easiest to access, but I don’t believe that makes it the only accessible form of debate or the only good form of debate. So, read the aff you want to read, but be prepared to defend it. Affirmative debaters can (and sometimes should) kick their advantage offense to go for offense on a neg position. I don’t see this enough and I really wish it was more common in plan debates, especially.

Negatives should answer the aff. How you answer the aff is your business, but I like specific links for negative arguments. On case, I love a good impact turn, but I’ll settle for any offense. In terms of DA choice, I think you benefit from reading high magnitude impacts most of the time, because the aff likely outweighs systemic DAs or has systemic impacts of its own.

For criticisms, I just want to understand what is happening. Most of the time that’s not a problem, but don’t assume I’ve read your lit or understand the jargon. I would prefer if you can articulate your criticism in accessible language in CX. I tend to prefer a K with a material impact, but I can vote for impacts that are less material if they’re explained well and interact with the aff impact in a meaningful way.

Negative procedurals should be limited to topicality if possible. T isn’t a voting issue because of “rules”. It’s a voting issue because of how it impacts debates. I default to competing interps and don’t usually hear a good justification (or even definition) for reasonability. I will still weigh based on reasonability if it is explained and won.

Spec, speed bad, and norm-setting arguments (like disclosure) generally don’t appeal to me. I understand their importance in some strategies and sometimes they are required. If someone refuses to slow down, I understand the need to say speed is bad. But I don’t care about rules, I care about how people are being treated – so make speed debates be about that. Spec and norm-setting arguments should be about the impact on research practices, education, and fairness in rounds.

2AC/1AR theory is not my favorite. I want debates to be about the aff case and when the affirmative debater decides to introduce additional issues, that often takes away from discussion of the aff itself. I know sometimes people go too far, and you have to read condo or delay bad or whatever. That’s fine. But use your best judgement to avoid reading theory in unnecessary situations and when you do have to read theory, keep the debate about the aff if possible.

I expect clear interpretations and voting issues for theory shells. I’ve noticed that this is not always the case in the NFA-LD theory debates I’ve seen, and teams would benefit from a specific statement of what should and/or should not be allowed.

Negative debaters should prioritize impact framing and delineate a path to the ballot for themselves. I have seen quite a few debates where the NR gets bogged down in the line-by-line and the aff wins by virtue of contextualizing arguments just a bit. In your NRs and 2ARs, I’d like to see more comparative analysis and focus on what my ballot should say, rather than exclusively line-by-line. You still need to answer and account for arguments in the line-by-line, but absent a clear “mission statement” for your speech paired with necessary analysis, it is hard to vote for you. Aff debaters can’t go all big picture in the 2AR. You have to deal with the line-by-line. I can’t ignore the NR and let you give a 3-minute overview. Get short and sweet with your overview. Clarify your path to ballot and then execute that strategy on the flow.

NSDA General

I’ve heard many things referred to as “cards” that are not cards. A card needs to be a direct quotation, read in part (marked by underlining and highlighting) with a citation and a tagline that explains that argument. Present it in this order: Tagline, Author/Year, Evidence. Referencing a study or article is not a “card.”

You should be reading cards in debates. And you should be prepared to share those cards with your opponents. If you’d like help learning how to cut evidence into cards and how to share those cards quickly with your opponents and judges, I’ll gladly walk you through the process – but there are many resources available to you outside of me so seek them out.

Seek out clash. Don’t say “my partner will present that later” or dodge questions. Find the debate and go to it. We’re here to answer each other’s arguments and learn from the process, so let’s do that.

Time yourselves and each other – you should keep track of your prep time and your opponent’s prep time and time every speech in the debate. This is a good habit that you need to build.

NSDA-LD

Values and value criterions are a weighing mechanism for evaluation of arguments. Winning the value debate matters because it changes how I view impacts in the round and prioritize them. I understand the idea of “upholding a value” as the end goal of an LD round, and I can buy into that as a way to win a round, too. However, if that’s what you do, I probably won’t vote for impacts outside of that framework. You should choose between (1) upholding a value as a virtue or good in itself or (2) winning impacts that you will frame using your value/criterion. Both are valid, but I am inclined toward the impact style (option 2) by default.

I tend to think of LD debates in four parts: Definitions, Value, Aff Contentions, and Neg Contentions. I think it makes sense to flow LD on three sheets: One for definitions and values, one for aff contentions, and one for neg contentions. That makes the clash in definitions and aff/neg value easier to isolate and prevents a lot of strange and usually unnecessary cross-applications. Thinking of negative values as “Counter Values” that answer the aff value makes a lot more sense to me. You don’t have to do this in your round or on your flow, but it should help you conceptualize how I think about these debates.

I have not judged many plan-focused rounds in NSDA-LD, but I’m open to that if that is your style or you want to experiment. If you do this, I’ll flow top of aff, advantages, and neg positions on separate sheets like I would in a policy debate, and you can ignore the stuff about values above.

I am open to the less traditional arguments available to you. I love to see the unique ways you can affirm or negate using different literature bases than just the core social contract and ethics grab-bag.

Public Forum

I don’t have a ton of specific notes for PF. Check out the general section for NSDA and feel free to ask questions.

I like when the aff team speaks first. It makes debates cleaner and encourages negative responsiveness to the aff. You don’t have to choose first if you’re aff and like speaking second. But keep it in mind and do what you will with that information.

I don’t flow crossfires. I pay attention, but you need to bring up relevant crossfire moments in your speech and explain why they matter for me vote for them or include them in my decisions.

If you need to reach out, my email is hunterparrish460@gmail.com. The order is going to be high school CX, college parli, high school LD, and high school PF. As I judge more things, the list will get longer. I did CX for four years in high school and parli for three years in college. In CX, my highest achievement was octafinalist at UIL state and in parli, my highest achievement is second in the nation.

High School CX

1. I am tab. I will vote on any argument you make. It is your round and I am simply here to see how good you did.
2. Tech over truth.
3. I like to see teams that can collapse to their winning arguments. You should not be reading everything from the first constructive in the last constructive.
4. Please don't reread cards. I heard you the first time.
5. Framework is not negotiable. I need to know how you want me to vote. I need to know what impacts are the biggest. I need to know what to do, they did not tell me in tab room.
6. I'm now going to go over the different kinds of arguments with what I think about them.

A. Policy affs - 5/5 - The bread and butter of being aff. I don't have too many notes on what I want or expect. At its core, I think you should be identifying a problem and how you fix it. Some framing about why your problem is really bad never hurts. Remember, as the aff, this is your only offense, and therefore, you should be protecting it like the precious baby it is.

B. K affs - 5/5 - Sometimes the topic is problematic and you don't want to be associated with the state. That's OK, you can be untopical. My only prerequisite question is why are you untopical? If you have a good answer for that, then your k aff is welcome and will be evaluated fairly. This doesn't mean I won't vote on T, so make sure you are ready to defend that answer to that previous question.

C. Disads - 3/5 - I have nothing against the disad, but it can't win alone. You either need to prove the aff can't solve, outweigh the aff, or solve the aff through a CP. The disad alone is like a ship in the night, and guess what, it is passing other ships. With that, I don't think any negative policy strat is complete without it, it is truly a filler for the ages.

D. CP - 4/5 - I don't have anything against the CP, but I never really read it. I went straight from defending the squo in high school to being a radical k reader in college. With that, I am willing to vote on the CP and have no hesitation doing so if it is competitive, solves the aff, and avoids net benefit offense. With that, net benefits can be a form of competition. In regard to all CP theory, check out what I have to say about theory.

E. Theory - 5/5 - I love theory debates because they alleviate crucial burnout by giving debaters and judges the ability to hear something other than the topic again. With that, however, a theory argument is like any other argument in the sense that it has parts that can't be ignored or neglected. Too many debaters think it's ok to simply say "this is abusive" and think they deserve the round. I need you to create an interpretation, show a violation, give standards to defend your interpretation and give voters for me to care. Without this, you're just wasting time you could use to read more disads.

F. Topicality - 4/5 - It's just a theory. I'm voting it lower, not because I'm less likely to vote on it, or even that it is bad. I simply see too many teams decide that they don't have to do the work of voters, and that being untopical is simply enough. It is not. If the affirmative is hypothetically solving all poverty, I don't care if they cheated in a debate round. I need you to make me care, by saying why education and fairness are actually super cool.

G. Kritik - 4/5 - I like the kritik. I think more people should read the kritik. With that, you have to know how to run a kritik and what your kritik is about. If you don't know the four parts AND you don't know at least the basic level of your kritik literature, don't do it. Otherwise, I'm really cool with the kritik.

College Parli

1. I am tab. I will vote on any argument you make, but warrant analysis is where these arguments should really be weighed.

2. Tech over truth.

3. Framework and collapsing to a win condition is not an option. I need to know how to vote and I need to know what a vote for either side actually means, not options for what it means.

4. I think I'm ok with speed. 7 or 8 out of 10.

5. I'm now going to go over the different kinds of arguments and what I think about them.

A. Policy affs 5/5 - I think policy affs are good. I don't have a lot of notes on them. Usually, framing in the PMC, be it impact framing or round framing, helps me know what the aff is supposed to be doing for me.

B. K affs 4/5 - Slight preference for policy, but I'll vote on them no doubt. I read them more than policy affs myself. I just think that in a world with a new topic each round, you have to have a good reason to read your k aff. If you don't have strong topic links or links to standard debate, then that TVA is going to be fire against you.

C. Disads 2/5 - I don't hate disads, but they are useless on their own. Case defense, impact framing, or a counterplan is required to make them work. I need to know the aff doesn't solve, your impacts are larger, or that you can solve the aff, otherwise I just have to pick the impacts I like.

D. Counterplans 5/5 - Really cool way to create advocacies with direct competition to the policy aff. Needs a net benefit.

E. Kritik 5/5 - Negative kritik is a great way to question the aff.

F. Theory 5/5 - Meta debate is fun and I feel comfortable analyzing it. Frivolous theories aren't great, but the staples (condo, be topical, multi-actor fiat, spec, etc.) make great debate when done right. Make sure you have standards and voters, they are not the same.

G. Topicality 3/5 - I don't dislike it, but in an event where only half the community reads the topic, someone who is getting there deserves some leeway.

6. Based on what I've been told in round, I will paradigmatically vote against any white debater who reads afropessimism. - Thanks Arjun!

EMAIL (for email chains/mid-round memes): mikayiparsons@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns! Please respect that! For example: "Mikay is drinking coffee right now. Caffeine is the only thing that gives them the will to keep flowing."

NPDA:

I debated for Lewis & Clark in parli for 4 years and coached at SDSU for 2. I liked policy and critical debate - no preferences there, read what you want to read. Some caveats: especially in K v K debates, I am prone to buy your argument more if you spend time explaining your method/advocacy, how it solves, and why it's better than the other one (hopefully with offense!). If I can't explain what your solvency mechanism is as I am writing my RFD, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on it. For theory debates, if you do not collapse and choose to go for theory and other offense, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on the theory. If you clearly win the sheet in a way that requires absolutely no intervention on my part fine, but that is highly unlikely if you are not collapsing. Be nice, have fun, and maybe read some overviews or something idk.

I've been out of the college parli world for a few years, so I do not know the current popular blocks/arguments being read. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read them; just take the extra 10 seconds to explain why you are reading what you are reading, add some warrants that others might fill in for you in their heads, etc. I am also not as fast of a flower as I was a few years ago, so I may ask you to slow down (I want to get as clean and accurate of a flow as possible!). I've outlined some more specific preferences in the high school section below, but I am happy to answer any questions you may have!

ALL HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE:

Background: I competed in high school Policy for two years on a not very good Idaho circuit, with a few LD/Pf tournaments thrown in the mix. Additionally, I competed for Lewis & Clark College in Parliamentary Debate for four years. The majority of the literature I have read involves critical feminism and queer theory and phenomenology, which makes me pretty decent at understanding the majority of critical debates. In debate, however, I probably read policy/straight up arguments at least 70% of the time, and thus can understand those debates just as well.

The way to get my ballot: I appreciate well warranted debates that involve warrant and impact comparison. Please make the debate smaller in the rebuttals and give a clear story for why you have won the debate. This limits the amount of intervention that is required of me/all judges and will make all of our lives much easier. I will auto-drop teams that yell over their competitors' speeches or belittle/make fun of the other team/me. I value debate as an accessible, educational space, and so if you prevent it from being either of those two things, I will let you know.

Speed: I was a somewhat fast debater and can typically keep up in the majority of rounds. If you are reading cards, slow down for tag lines, author affiliations, advocacies, and interpretations, because those are pretty important to get down word for word, but feel free to go fast through the rest of the card. If you are cleared/slowed by the other team and do not slow down/become more clear, I will give you low speaks (again, debate is good only insofar as it is educational and accessible - spreading people out of the debate is boring and a silly way to win).

Theory: I love theory and believe it is currently underutilized in high school debate. I appreciate well thought out interpretations and counter-interpretations that are competitive and line-up well with their standards/counter-standards, as well as impacted standards that tie in with your voters. Theory is a lot of moving parts that require you fit them together into a coherent story.

Condo: I think conditionality is very good for debate, but also love hearing a good theory debate about condo. I have a pretty level threshold for voting either way, so have the debate and I will decide from there.

Critical affs/negs: I love hearing K's that are run well, both on the aff and neg! I have voted for and run critical affirmatives, and have also run/voted on framework answers to those very affirmatives. I am about as middle of the road as you can get, so again have the debate and I will decide from there based upon the arguments presented in round.

Finally, if you've made it this far, please please please do what you can to make debate educational, accessible, and worth all of our time. Coming in and being mean/spreading out some novices will not make you better debaters, so there is no point in doing so! This activity means so much to so many people; the least we can all do is be respectful of those around us.

If you're reading this, that's already a good start. You should continue to do so until there are no words left. I competed in parli for ~5 years at McKendree University, and did 4 years of high school LD before that. My partner and I won the 2020 NPDA. I've coached both NPDA and IPDA at McKendree University, San Diego State University, and currently coach at Mercer University and Denison University. All of these things mostly tell you nothing about my thoughts on debate, but they should tell you that I have quite a lot of them. I'll do my best to keep it brief here.

My thoughts on debate have changed a lot since my time as a competitor and my paradigm is the best way to find that out - your coaches/fellow teammates/others who knew me as a debater are likely not going to give you an accurate run down of who I am as a judge, so it's good that you're reading this.

I really do try to be as tabula rasa as possible when I judge. I don't have a preference for any type of argument and feel that I am a good judge for almost any strategy. I'm actually a sucker for a big stick aff vs a wide LOC. T, K, DA/CP LOCs with a clean MO collapse are my favorite debates to watch. I like K debate - but I like case debate even more to be honest. I'm highly critical of most K teams because I'm not generally moved by Ks that frankenstein literature together and aren't grounded in actual scholarly work. To me, this is what makes the K effective because it acts as a bridge between debate and the larger academic scholarship that it exists within. I also don't think that the K is some special form of argument that on face goes against "technical" forms of debate. I think the K is the most technical form of debate and I evaluate it as such, so it is likely harder to win a K debate in front of me. I just have a really high standard when it comes to these arguments.

Some specifics you might want to know:

NPDA

1. I think Condo is good, so Condo Bad debates would have to be very technically deep and well-executed for me to vote most of the time. I haven't seen one of these debates go well in a while (although I would love to). I also think reading a one-off unconditional strat in the LOC is pretty baller, too.
2. You can't win on the aff without going for the aff. I feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but it does implicate how I evaluate RVIs on theory or independent voters in the PMR. Most of the time, arguments that are reasons to vote aff that don't consist of actually going for the aff are probably things that shouldn't be happening in-round anyway, and you can trust me as a judge to punish teams accordingly without having to hail mary your entire round on them. This also means I vote neg on presumption - and I have been known to do this even if the negative doesn't tell me to. It's the one job the aff has and it is usually pretty clear on the flow when the aff hasn't done that. It also brings me joy to vote neg on presumption, so don't be afraid to throw the ol presumption block into your neg speeches. And no, presumption never flows aff and no one ever has or likely ever will be able to explain this argument to me in a way that makes any sense.
3. Topicality is a question of the words in the plan text, not the solvency of the aff. Idk man, I think we all have forgotten how T works. If you're gonna collapse to topicality in the MO please make sure the aff actually violates your interpretation on a textual level. I don't know what "the spirit of the interp" means and I don't think you all do, either.
4. I like theory debates. I like good theory debates more. Nothing wrong with reading it in the LOC and kicking out of it in the MO - but if the debate is gonna come down to theory just know this is a highly technical collapse to pull off as far as I'm concerned.
5. I take my role as a judge and arbiter in this activity very seriously, and the privilege that comes with that position means not putting the onus on the debaters to call out problematic behavior before I vote for it. I just think that's my responsibility and I don't really care about discourse claiming that my only job as a judge is to vote for the arguments in round. If you do or say something messed up, I feel pretty alright about using the ballot to show my distaste for that, even if you otherwise won the technical flow of the debate. If you wanna be able to get away with problematic behavior, please strike me accordingly I guess.
6. I like jokes and debates that are fun. You can still have fun while going for things like Anti-Blackness - I did. If you have a silly or whacky argument you've always wanted to read I'm the judge to do it in front of. I don't like feeling like the weight of the world rests on my decision cause everyone came in all intense. I'm literally just a little guy .-.
7. I don't give away free speaker points and if you ask for them don't go to tab about that 25 I gave you instead. I think it's disrespectful to all the national champion speakers in this activity to suggest that you deserve a 30 for no reason other than you wrote it into your shell as an argument. Speaker awards should be coveted and difficult to achieve in my opinion.
8. As far as speaker points, my average is somewhere around a 28.2 - I consider a 27.7 a "bare-minimum you did the thing" speech and a 27 is my floor. If I give you below a 27 you did something pretty bad/mean/not okay and the points I give you is indicative of my disapproval. I almost never give anything higher than a 29.7 unless it is well deserved. I don't think I have ever given a 30 - and if I have I know exactly who I gave it to (and they are a national champion speaker).
9. MG theory is fine, but the more sheets of paper you add into the debate the more grumpy I will be. I also think the only legitimate MG theory is condo bad, CP theory, and speed (sometimes. I have an incredibly high threshold for this argument and "they went faster than I wanted them to" does not meet that threshold).
10. My flow is not as tight as it used to be. This might be me being hard on myself or maybe its transitioning from paper to a laptop but please pause before sheets of paper so I don't lose you. This is a mark of a good speaker to me anyway - if you can't afford to pause for 5 seconds between positions then you need to read less/shorter arguments or you need to get faster. Either way, don't punish the rest of us.
11. I'll give a lot of feedback because I think that's my value as a judge. I don't care if the tournament is behind, no one benefits from a 10-second RFD. If it's that serious and I really don't have time to share my thoughts please come see me after because I will remember your debate and I will be happy to give feedback.
12. I like really deep and complex warrants and warrant comparison. An argument consists of both a claim and a warrant - so we should probably address those throughout the debate. A heg debate where the whole thing is "heg is good, I promise" v "heg is bad, we all know this" do not spark joy.
13. Telling me to extend a conceded argument is not enough and I will not do that work for you. To properly extend an argument it should be re-articulated in the larger context of the debate at the point of the extension. For instance, extending a climate change impact probably also means explaining why that matters in the context of the neg strat, even if there wasn't an explicit response to the impact from the neg. If you extend an argument that I still think is implicated by some other argument on another sheet of paper then that will factor into my decision.
14. I don't lean one way or another automatically when it comes to K Affs v Framework. I like K affs that do the work to explain why you get to reject the topic/defend your advocacy/etc. "The topic is vaguely bad/unethical/etc." is not enough - topics are normative statements and nothing more and it's possible to have a good defense of a bad topic. I like framework debates that engage with the K Aff in a meaningful way and are technically deep. I don't like debaters that run away from what makes them uncomfortable. I won a lot of debates going for K Affs. I won a lot of debates going for framework, too. So don't count on my ideological support to make a decision in your favor.

Not sure I have anything else. I'd add a recipe or poem or something here but I actually think my paradigm should be useful so I'll spare you. I really really like debate - when I said "burn it down" all those times I really did mean it heuristically (despite what others who have not actually read a single piece of afropessimist literature in their life might tell you). So, get out of this activity what you want - it's not my job to tell you what arguments to read. Just make it fun for me by doing whatever it is you do well.

IPDA

I didn't compete in IPDA, but I think it's a super cool format. That said, if you know I'm gonna be in the back of your room you might be advantaged by choosing one of the policy topics. That's just the debate that I will be best at evaluating. That said, I did compete in LD and I do coach IPDA so I feel comfortable evaluating other types of topics - but I will still see things similarly to parli on a technical level.

1. If you're gonna take the time to offer definitions then make them useful and strategic. Words can and do mean a lot of different things in a lot of different contexts so this portion of the debate can end up being really meaningful.
2. Case construction is really important and I think this is where most debates are lacking for me in this format. I need a highly warranted argument that builds on itself and culminates in an impact that I can vote on. A bunch of unrelated claims with shaky warrants make it harder to make a decision.
3. I don't mind speed at all in this format and will evaluate speed debates exactly as I do in NPDA. "They went faster than I wanted them to" is not enough. Maybe you went slower than they wanted you to. The debate has to be far more in depth than this to sway me in one direction or the other.
4. I mostly evaluate IPDA similarly to NPDA so it might be beneficial to read my paradigm for that as well. Ks are cool. Case debate is slightly more cool most of the time, unless you're really good at the K. I don't like excessive MG theory and if you don't collapse as the negative I will be very upset. Any other specifics you might want to ask me about before the round.

The allegory of the cornbread:

Debate is like a delicately constructed thanksgiving dinner. Often, if you take time to make sure you don’t serve anyone anything they’re allergic to, we can all grit it and bear it even if we really didn’t want to have marshmallows on our sweet potatoes. Mashed potatoes and gravy are just as good as cranberry relish if you make it right. Remember, If you’ve been invited to a thanksgiving dinner you should show up unconditionally unless you have a damn good excuse or your grandma got hit by a reindeer because we’re here to eat around a point of commonality unless your great uncle happens to be super racist. Then don’t go to thanksgiving. I’ll eat anything as long as you’re willing to tell me what’s in it and how to cook it. Remember, you don’t prepare stuffing by making stuffing, that’s not a recipe that’s a tautology. I eat a lot, I’m good at eating, and I’d love to help you learn how to eat and cook too.


PS: And why thanksgiving? Because you’re other options are Christmas featuring a man way too old to be doing that job asking if you’ve been naughty or nice at the hotel lobby, the Easter bunny which is just a man way older than you’d think he is in a suite offering kids his definitely-not-sketchy candy (who maybe aren’t really even old enough to be eating all that candy), or Labor Day where everyone realizes they can’t wear their hoods and be fashionable at the same time.

Hi, I am Kyle Pryor-Landman, my pronouns are he/him, my email is kpryorlandman@sdsu.edu, and I am the Director of Debate at SDSU. I competed in NPDA debate for 3 years, won some tournaments, and got some trophies, and now I coach college and high school parli.

FAQs:

1. What can I run in front of you?: Anything you want. Seriously. IDC.
2. Can I spread?: Sure, just dont be abusive.
3. Can I reject the topic?: Probably! Do you know your own K? (If you cannot give an enthusiastic YES! To this question, think twice)
4. What do you want to see?: In order from most to least enjoyable for me to judge:
1. Topical Aff vs. Disads/CP/T
2. Topical Aff vs. K
3. K aff vs. FW-T
4. K aff vs. K (everyone understands their K)
5. K aff vs K (no one understands their K) (I am the wrong judge to break your new K aff in front of)
5. Will you vote on frivolous theory?: Did you argue it well enough?: If yes, sure. If not, probably no.
6. Do you have a preference for sitting/standing/side of the room?: You do you, Pookie.
7. Do you protect?: I try to, but call your POOs. My flow is messy, admittedly.
8. Will you give me 30 speaks?: If you ask, you get a 20. :)
9. Do you accept bribes?: Officially, no.
10. What about LD?: The same rules apply from parli but give me a little bit more pen time because I am still figuring out how I feel.
11. How do you feel about IPDA?: Poorly. The closer it is to NPDA the less I have to intervene, and the happier I am. Do with that what you will.
12. How do you feel about TPDA? Please reject the topic and spread as fast as you can. The faster we can get TPDA to collapse, the better.
13. Is there anything else I should know about you as a judge?: I like to have fun silly goofy time in debate rounds. I also have carpal tunnel, so my written RFDs are going to be shorter than they used to be. Email me after the tournament if you want more written feedback, but you should also be writing down your oral feedback anyway.
14. If I ask you what your paradigm is before round, what will you say?: This exact sentence: Its on ForensicsTournament if you wanna check it out.

Cowardice is a voting issue. Say it with your chest. - Adeja Powell

TL;DR - Do what you want. I can keep up. Debate is about you, not me. Just make sure I can follow along.

Speaks: 26-30 unless you say a slur or something extra shitty. 30 being the best speech I have heard all year, 26 being you did not include significant portions of the debate, extremely unorganized, and/or no terminalization. < 26: You'll know because I'll tell you.

Tab, do whatever you do best. I do not have any categorical prohibitions on any types of arguments. While debating I mostly read the K (Cap, Psychoanalysis, Queerness, Schmitt, Heidegger, Biopolitics, etc.) with T and heg as secondary strategies.

Impact comparison is incredibly important for my ballot. Debate is a game of world comparison, for instance if the debate comes down to an aff vs a disad, I will ask myself if the world of the aff or the world of the status quo is net beneficial. This is what it means to weigh impacts. My default impact framing mechanism is Util. If you present an alternative impact framing mechanism tell me how it impacts my evaluation.

Interps must be textually competitive, there is no spirit of the T. For instance, if your interp is "the aff must spec their agent of action." I will vote on a we meet if the aff specs it at some point in the round. So, a better interp would be "the aff must spec their agent of action in the pmc."

T and theory require explicit interps,

If you are going for a non-extinction death impact under a util framing (which is my default if you dont present me with an alternative) please quantify your impacts.

I have very ambivalent feelings about MG theory. The absences of backside rebuttals makes it structurally abusive but on the other hand without it there is not way to check back for neg abuse. My attitude can be summarized thusly: "lets not!"

Speed is not an issue

I see to minimize judge intervention. Many debate that I judge often miss the forest for the trees, the entire debate becomes a show line by line tit for tat responses without either team pulling across a warrant that is predictive of the opponents arguments nor taking a step back and establishing the stakes of these line by line attacks as it relates to the substance of the debate. Please do predictive comparisons.

Theory defaults to common issues: Condo good, don't need to spec, speed good, cx is binding, presumption goes neg.

Fiat is required for any negative argument that does not defend the status quo.

I did policy debate in High School and was the 2018 4A CX state champion. I did parli at UT Tyler and was a two time NPTE finalist and a one time NPDA finalist. I currently coach parli at William Jewell College.
masonaremaley@gmail.com

What's up!

I competed in NPDA and LD for University of the Pacific from 2019 - 2023. Before that I competed for 6 years in middle school and high school, in PF, LD, and Policy. Now I am a graduate assistant coach for University of the Pacific.

TLDR/Parli

I like topical advocacies. I like when counter-advocacies are unconditional. I like clever and strategic theory. I can handle speed but I wasn't the fastest debater so keep that in mind.

Specific Arguments/Parli

AFF Cases

While I prefer when AFFs defend a topical advocacy, I am still willing to vote on AFFs that do not. Those AFFs will just have to spend more time explaining their argument and their justification for not defending the topic. With that in mind, I do have a lower threshold to vote on theory/framework against AFFs that don't defend the topic.

K/CP/Condo

For the K, you can read whatever you want but I probably don't have a great understanding of the lit its based off of. A thesis would be great. I also tend to think that most alternatives don't actually solve the in-round/out-of-round harms they claim that they do so clear explanations of how the alt solves is best.

For the CP, I love them. If they are abusive or could be seen as abusive (like delay), be careful because I will be receptive to theory arguments claiming that they are.

For condo, while I prefer unconditional advocacies and probably have a lower threshold than most to vote on condo bad, I won't auto drop the team for being conditional. I will still evaluate the condo bad sheet and if the neg wins this sheet than they're good to be as conditional as they please. With that being said, the threshold is much lower when the neg reads multiple conditional advocacies.

Theory/Topicality

I have a pretty low threshold for voting on any LOC theory/topicality, even frivolous ones, if it is clear and strategic. I don't need proven abuse to pull the trigger but it definitely makes it a lot easier to vote for you. I have a higher threshold to vote on MG theory except for Condo Bad, which I am much more likely to vote on.

Speed

If you were faster than me or think that you were faster than me, then you probably were so a little bit slower than your top speed will ensure I get 99% of your arguments.

LD

Read what you want. Disclose.

Email

If you have any questions feel free to email me at j_reyes21@u.pacific.edu.

I debated from 2011-2016 and I've coached for various programs in different formats from 2016 to now. I'm fine voting for any position as long as it isn't harmful or offensive. I evaluate the round based off the arguments and warrants on my flow. You need two things to win my ballot:

1. Specificity - Being specific wins you debates. Tell me how the aff/counterplan/alt does what you say it does. Tell me how your disads and kritiks link. Tell me how your theory interps create the best model of debate. Seriously, the more specific you are in your analysis the better.

2. Comparative analysis - Your rebuttals construct a story detailing how arguments interact with one another. Talk about your impacts and the other teams impacts - tell me why I should prioritize some over others. Tell me what the world of the aff and the world of the neg looks like.

**updated earlier this semester, but was not updated on Tabroom**

Hi there! My name's Tierra. I competed in LD for 4 years in high school, then did LD and Parli for 4 years at the University of the Pacific. This is my second year coaching for UoP as a graduate assistant coach. Below are some of the things that might help you understand the way I think about debate and how I evaluate certain positions.

Affs:

I think the affirmative should ideally be topical. I think critical affirmatives can be achieved without outright rejecting the topic. For AFFs that decide to forgo this and decide to reject the topic, I need clear explanations for why you are doing so, why it is necessary, etc.

Topicality/Theory:

I understand topicality as how individual words in the resolution ought to be interpreted for the best debate.

The negative should have a clear definition/interpretation, and the affirmative should make sure to make we meet arguments and offer competing definitions/interpretations. For theory, I have a higher threshold for frivolous theory, especially when its used as an exclusionary tool or a time suck, but I am receptive to theory that seems warranted given the nature of the topic i.e. PICs Bad, No PIC on a whole law, condo bad, etc.

This means that I tend to default to competing interpretations over reasonability, even if I think the aff might be good in some way for the debate (ie reasonability). This means that having arguments like why competing interps is bad or why reasonability is good are strategic.

CP/Ks:

CPs or Ks should be unconditional, and I can be persuaded by condo bad arguments. That being said, I still expect these to be warranted out and WEIGHED, which means I dont just auto drop teams that are condo. I also think that when the negative has read either a CP/K, they have the burden of proving why their alternative choice is preferable, and thus for me, presumption would flip Aff.

I like policy debate, and think counterplan-disad debates can be really interesting, but often underutilized.I ran Ks when I competed, but Im probably not deep in the critical literature youre reading. This means you can run your K but if I dont understand how to evaluate it compared to the Aff or reasons why the alternative is preferable, Im likely to be persuaded by the perm (if one is made) and the aff leveraging their advantages. I think perms need to be explained, and Im not a fan of vague perm: do both arguments without any additional explanation of how its possible or what that means.

Speed/Clarity:

I dont think speed should be used to exclude anyone from the round and that you should slow or clear if someone says slow or clear. Im a fast talker, and might be able to keep up, but you at your top speed is probably too fast for me. If you want me to get your arguments, you should slow down a touch and try to punch your tags.

Also for funsies, here is a list of my previous debate partners who probably were better than I was. Do with that information what you will: Arshita Sandhiparthi, Jonathan Reyes, Ravi Prasad, Marlu Reyes.

If you have any questions, dont hesitate to reach out! My email is t_smithson@u.pacific.edu

I'll try my best to keep this short.

First of all, please be considerate of speed. I think rounds that are at tip-top speeds often make debate inaccessible. Additionally, if I miss something or it doesn't end up on my flow that could hurt your case.

I'll vote for pretty much anything if it's run well. I don't mind voting on weird technical arguments or Ks if they are argued well and extended into final speeches. I like Ks and have run my fair share of them but I also understand philosophy and expect the impacts and solvency of Ks to be explained. I think Ks with Alts that don't do anything are frustrating but I also regularly ran the Alt "Smash the symbols of the empire in the name of nothing but the hearts longing for grace" as a competitor so do with that what you will. I do think presumption flips aff in the case of a non conditional Neg advocacy so keep that in mind.

On the other hand, I also have a lot of respect for strait up policy cases and enjoy watching them. Framework matters in most debates, if I'm not given a clear framework I default to magnitude and time frame. If you want me to weigh for example small scale impacts before low probability massive impacts (or the other way) tell me why that's important.

T is fair game, I am bias against really frivolous or silly T but if you crush them with it I wont keep a win from you on the basis of a silly or frivolous interp, I just wont like it.

Ill vote on an IVI pretty easily if something egregious happens in round but otherwise there needs to be really clear voters explained for me to vote on it.

TLDR: if you give me a good solid reason to vote for something, I will. I value framework heavier than some judges and think it tells me how to weigh the round. I can vote on truth or tech, just give me a reason. If things get muddy I always default to the flow and where I think pieces clash.

I'm biased against any advocacy or theory that advocates for mass violence or death.
If you use a slur violently in round I will vote you down and tank your speaks.
(using a slur as an act of intentional reclamation within reason with justification is obviously a different situation and fine)

If you have any questions before the round please ask them. Best of luck!
If you have questions feel free to email me at Spiropij@whitman.edu

For EMail chains - Nadyasteck@gmail.com

Hey y’all, Nadya here, I’m glad that I’m getting the opportunity to judge you in this round! For the sake of a pre-round TL:DR-

I want my opinion to come into play as little as possible during the round. I would like to be told how to vote and why, by the end of the rebuttals I will almost always pick the easiest simplest route to ballot possible. You can do this through Impact Calc, Framing debates, link directionality claims, etc. I don’t particularly care what the debate ends up being about, topical or in total rejection of the resolution I’ll be fine either way. I am fairly familiar with Policy, Kritik, and theory debate, do what you want. I will give you the best possible feed back I am capable of at the end of the round. I am most familiar with NPDA and NFA-LD.

Some more specific things for when you have time to read more -

General Things -

- Unless told otherwise I vote tech over truth, I am compelled by arguments to throw out my flow and eval the truth claims in the round as they exist in their entirety and will listen to them, you just have to win that I eval them first

- I find that people have gotten less interesting clear in their impact calculus as of late, I would like more explicit and clear articulations as to why I should care about what impact. Absent being given this context in a round I will default to probable over high magnitude impacts.

- My experience with debate, I was the Director of Debate at Lewis and Clark College for the last 5 years. Before that I competed in NPDA and NFA-LD for 5 years in college. I read a little bit of everything as a debater but had some particular favourites (Queer Pes, D&G, DeCol, Impact Turns)

- I have no problem voting on terminal defense if the round comes down to it, but I am always much more excited to get to actual vote offense in a round.

- I’m fine with you going fast if you want, its not really a huge problem so long as you aren’t weaponizing speed to exclude other people in the round go wild. I have a pretty low threshold needed to be met to vote on speed theory

- I don’t vote on disclosure, don’t take this as a challenge, I DO NOT VOTE ON DISCLOSURE, I do not care if its conceded, I do not care if you think you’ve got the version of the argument to get me to finally change, I will not vote for it under any circumstances.

- Please please please, read analytics, be smart, just saying an argument isn’t an argument because it doesn’t have a piece of evidence immediately attached to it doesn’t mean that an argument wasn’t made, as long as its explained an analytic is a perfectly valid argument and needs to treated as such.

• I like creative extensions of the aff, I like well structured overviews, and in general am always excited to see what weird new things you all come up with, so please show me what you’ve got, I love seeing the limits of what debate is capable of
• It’s something I never really thought to put but after judging with a few folks and some convos with other judges I think it bares stating, I don’t auto presume presumption flips aff just because a counter advocacy of some type is read, I believe that the negative always has the status quo as an option, you are welcome to make arguments to the contrary and I’ll happily listen but if I don’t vote for your presumption trigger it’s probably because you didn’t make the argument.

Theory Specifics-

I will vote on theory read in basically any speech within reason, I think that if abuse happens in the 1NR than the 2AR has a right to read arguments about it happening, it doesn’t mean I will automatically vote on it, but I will at least flow and eval it.

• Some jurisdictional issues regarding theory. Theory is by default Apriori, you can always make the argument that it isn’t or that I should evaluate something else first. “This is an NFA-LD rule” is not a voter its a statement, the action of them breaking a rule has a result, that is your voter. Fairness and Education are bad voters, please contextualize them, what kind of fairness, education about what? Please make sure you have a clear interpretation, please please please make sure its clear, I will hold you to the interp you read out of the first speech it is read out of. I will default to competing interpretations as an eval mechanism unless told explicitly not too.
• - lighting round, Yes I’ll vote on 1AR theory, Condo is fine until it isn’t, Dispo is okay until it isn’t, Pics are good until they aren’t, Floating pics are great until they aren’t, CP theory is always a good option, I’ll vote on spec but I won’t be happy about it, Potential abuse is fine but proven abuse last forever.

Kritik Specifics

- I am familiar with most common critical authorship that has been popular in the last decade or so. This includes; Cap of all flavours, Queerness stuff, Blackness lit, Decol and Set Col stuff, PoMo stuff like D&G, Ableism stuff, and a few fringe things. Feel free to read whatever kind of kritik you want to in front of me and I will evaluate it to the absolute best of my ability.

- I’m not super picky about how you read a kritik, but I do think that every kritik needs to functionally make three claims in order to function. First, a Kritik must make some kind of evaluative claim, what should my ballot focus on and what impacts should be prioritized. Second, a Kritik must have a link to the specific actions either advanced explicitly or methodologically endorsed by the aff plan. Third, there needs to be a clear and explicit alternative that has a clear solvency claim.

- If you want to read a K Aff go wild, I did it a lot when I was a debater, I am usually sympathetic to them and enjoy a good K Aff, that being said, I do still expect you to fill your time and be strategic. If you’re rejecting the topic wholesale fine, but tell me why, give me a reason why the topic should be abandoned. Make sure that you are advancing a clear methodology in your 1AC as well, I don’t so much care what that method is just make sure you stick to it, I find that I am exceptionally compelled by a a good contextualization or warranted analysis of the 1AC vs theory etc. out of the 1NC. A sneaky 1Ar/2AC restart will almost always net you high speaks in my book, its a hard thing to do well but if you can manage a tricky restart to the debate in the second aff speech I won’t shut up about it.

- Rapid Fire, Links of omission are bad and warrant link turns of omission please be specific on your link sheet, you can read a K and theory at the same time I find that I not super compelled by “you read theory which is a form of X violent practice so it links to your K” like if you want to go for the double turn go for it but like its not a strong arg, K and theory operate on different levels which I evaluate comes first is up to you and your opponent, floating pics are fun please read them strategically but make sure you can answer the theory sheet first.

Policy Specifics

- I am fine evaluating a good Case vs CP and DA combo. In fact a good DA/PIC combo is one of perhaps the most fun strategies that exists in the negative tool box. I am fine with any sort of case argument. I will vote on terminal defense, the sqo is neg ground and if the aff can’t solve than the aff doesn’t change the sqo, so I vote negative. I am not happy to vote on terminal defense, but as they say, the status quo is always an option I guess.

- I find that too often people read uniqueness args at each other but never think about the way those arguments actually interact with each other. I think that the best way to win a policy debate is to win the uniqueness level. Who cares if the aff solves an impact if the sqo already solved it right? I think that too often we focus on impact debate and link debate and forgo some of the fundamentally important arguments that are needed to win these claims. If you’re reading this now, take it as a reminder, when was the last time you updated your 1AC uniqueness? Cutting updates should happen before every tournament, don’t let yourself lose because you didn’t stay on top of your research.

- Straight Case is perhaps the best thing a 1NC can read, if you read straight case in front of me you will almost certainly net 30 speaks no questions asked. I’ve almost never not voted on this strategy, just case defense and impact turns or link turns is such a compelling strategy and as you’ll find out, a lot of people are a lot less ready to actually defend their case than you may think.

Some last minute fun things -

- Try to have fun, I love voting on goofy stuff and am fine to have a good time. The only argument that has a 100% win rate in front of me is Wipe Out so like who cares what I think anyway right?

Background

I am one of the founders of the NPTE and I served as its vice-president from 2001 to 2011. Before helping create NPTE, I competed in NPDA and NFA-LD debate for Creighton University. I won the 1999 DSR-TKA National Championship. For three years, I served as a resident instructor of political science and international relations. I am currently an attorney in Minnesota practicing in the areas of criminal defense, civil litigation, administrative law, and appeals. I am a cis man married to a cis woman and I have a 3-year-old and identical twin 10-month-old boys.

I also have a lot of really weird historical knowledge about NPTE. For example, I was the original proposer for the "division of the house" method for deciding the championship, and I know exactly why it was ultimately discarded. I also know exactly where the trophy came from and I know exactly who damaged the speaker award trophy and how.

Parliamentary Debate

I know everyone aspires to be "tab rosa" but I've learned that's impossible. The best any human can do is try to be aware of their own biases and consciously try to set them aside when filling an adjudicative role. For any person, there are at least a few highly emotional areas where that's not possible for them. Among mine are: overt sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of bullying conducted by those occupying privileged social positions against those occupying disadvantaged social positions. Steer clear of what currently passes for the far right wing of American politics and you won't have anything to worry about in my politics.

My overarching view of debate is that debate is a competition. That means that I am not going to try to tell you how to present your case any more than I think the Belgian judge should try to dictate the point at which a figure skater elects to throw in a quad toe loop. That's up to the competitors. My job is merely to assess the quality of their performance. That means you can feel free to run any argument using any style and based on any underlying framework you want. It's your case, run it.

That said, there are some things that I have observed are generally more effective from my point of view. I'll highlight a few that come to mind:

1. Explain, don't just assert. An argument with an explanation and articulation of key details and warrants is far more effective than just listing bullet points or tag lines.
2. Bring theory together with the real world.Academic and philosophical theories carry little weight when they are abstract musings from a faculty lounge. They can be immensely powerful when matched with real-world observations that reflect and impact the lives of people who aren't graduate students. For debates, this means that impacts matter most when they are both powerfuland plausible.
3. Details matter. The old saying is that "the devil is in the details." It really goes both ways. A world comprised of billions of humans is enormously complex, so the success or failure of every policy or philosophy almost always turns on interactions between details that are not always obvious when first designing a policy or spelling out a philosophy. For debater, that means internal links are often more important than big impacts.
4. Be responsive. The best debates I have seen have been the ones where that focused on a substantive disagreement between the debaters' positions. The worst debates I have seen are when the debaters keep trying to coopt the same position seen as "preferred" while finding some maneuver to nudge the other side off that position. Apart from the list of "highly emotional areas" I listed above, you're not likely to find me adopting a "preferred" position on any topic. So clash.
5. Be creative. Debate is a chance to play with ideas while learning effective advocacy at the same time. So use the intellectual sandbox you've been given. The best arguments are sometimes the ones your opponents never saw coming and were forced to think on their feet to address. The flip side is: think on your feet. If you are hit with a creative argument, get creative in response. You can flip the tables and it is damned impressive when you do it.

Specific Debate Issues

1. Topicality. I love it and think its great in debate because it mirrors the real world. A court can't address a case unless it has "subject matter jurisdiction." That's basically a topicality debate. Also, one of my best debate memories was winning an NFA-LD tournament with suicide-T on the word "its." So go for it. That said, I've heard some great kritiks of T, so go for that too.
2. Kritiks.I don't know if this is still what it's called. I've heard it referred to as paradigms (1980s) and frameworks (2010s) also. Basically, it is anything that focuses on the underlying discourses, narratives, or implicit power structures (allegedly) existing in the debate round or implied by the resolution or topic area. As far as running them, go for it. See, e.g., paragraph 5, above. See also paragraph 1, above (explain it!).
3. Meta-Debate.If we're talking about critiquing debate itself, see above. If we're talking about trying to explicitly manipulate allocation of wins or speaker points, don't do it. The game of debate is about a clash of ideas, not manipulation of the tab room software.
4. Inherency. Most people thought this was a dead letter 25 years ago and I doubt that's changed. But if you think about inherency as identifying causation, it's a great way to nuke link stories. Being creative can be mining the past as well as making something new.

I debated for 8 years. In college, I debated mostly parli, some LD and Policy, for Saint Mary’s College of California. My partner and I dropped in octos of NPDA in 2019. I have been coaching debate both at SMC and at KCKCC since then. In college, My debate partner and I mostly read critical arguments. So I’m cool with Ks, and a well-written K will make me happy. Make sure you can explain how you link and how your alt solves. I also know my way around a plan debate, so read whatever draws you. Make sure your Aff is inherent, and have a clear, consistent story through uniqueness, links, and impact. I’m also down to hear your CP/DA and think condo is probably good. I would be equally happy to vote on a theory or framework argument as long as you tell me how it wins the debate. I can handle speed, just slow down for your alt/plan and interps and don’t use it to exclude people, that will make me fussy.

I also reserve the right to vote teams down for being overtly oppressive (saying something racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, ablest, Islamophobic, etc.), generally or directed to competitors.

Bring me a chai and you get block 30s

Overall: Read offence. Use more warrants. Do impact calc, the more work you do for me explaining how you win the better your chances are of winning. Be nice to each other.

Hi! I'm Mary. Thanks for reading my paradigm :)

Who are you?

I am an attorney practicing business and employment law in Oregon. (If you are interested in law I'd love to chat!) From 2020-2023 while I went to law school, I was co NFA-LD coach for Lewis & Clark College. I graduated from L&C undergrad in May 2020 and did parli (NPDA) debate there. I also competed in high school for four years, mainly in LD. For the sake of ultimate transparency, I want to make my debate opinions as explicit as possible. I promise to try my best!

What is the tl;dr?

I will listen to any argument that you make and will weigh it how you tell me to. K's are my favorite and topicality is not (though I am down for the silly stuff!) Please make clear extensions. Don't be a jerk. I will absolutely not tolerate discriminatory behavior or post-rounding.

Note for High School:

You do you! I have done or am familiar with every high school event. All of the below would apply in a technical/circuit style debate round. If you are unfamiliar with any of that, don't worry! I will evaluate the round how you tell me to. Feel free to ask me questions. Be kind to each other. Have fun with it!

How do you allocate speaker points?

I really struggled with coming up with a consistent way to give speaks. They are usually arbitrary and reflective of personal biases... SO I usually give high speaks (30 + 29.9). That being said if I don't give you the speaks you wanted, don't read into it, I have no idea how to give speaks in a fair or consistent way. I'm open to any args you want to make about speaks and just let me know if you have any questions.

How do you feel about Speed?

I have not kept up with debate ever since starting my career and need you to go somewhere between your mid and top speed. If it's really important PLEASE slow down. If there is a doc, I can keep up better with faster spreading so please share it with me! I'll slow and/or clear you if I need to.

What about the K?

I love love love performative affs and GOOD k debates. I've almost always read non-topical Ks with some fun (loosely) topical debates mixed in every once in a while. I’m familiar with almost all K lit but please do not assume I know exactly what you are talking about (especially when it comes to D n G bc i simply do not get it.) I am most familiar with futurism arguments and performance affs. Cap is fun! Generic links are so frustrating and so are unclear alts. I love a good explanation of the world post the alt. I'd honestly rather vote for an uncarded link that is specific to the aff and contextualized to the debate than to vote on a generic carded link.

How do you feel about perms?

Love it. Fun stuff. Perms are probably advocacies because everyone treats them like they are.

What if I want to read theory/topicality?

If you read theory or topicality, read a smart interp with a clear violation and standards/voters that make sense. Voters that do not make sense to me include: fairness without a warrant, education without a warrant, and “NFA rules say it’s a voter.”

I prefer proven abuse. I don't think potential abuse has an impact.

I also think the competing interps vs. reasonability debate is SO dumb. "prefer CI bc reasonability leads to judge intervention" and "prefer reasonability bc CI leads to a race to the bottom” are not warrants. If you really want to know how I evaluate theory, it is likely that I will "reasonably" vote for whichever "competing interpretation" is doing the best.

We meets are terminal defense on T.

I wanna read some topical stuff! How does that sound?

Great! Read tons of topical stuff. I do like me a good topical debate! Clearly articulated link chains and impacts will go a long way.

Condo?

Be condo if you want plus I prefer a hard collapse anyway.

Anything else?

Collapse, slow down for important things you really want me to remember, don't forget to do impact calc, and have fun ;)

Please feel free to send/ask me questions! You can reach me at marytalamantez@lclark.edu or send me a message on facebook. Otherwise you can ask before a round!

I'm open to most stuff.
FOR BOTH ONLINE AND OFFLINE DEBATE:clarity is important. I will now more aggressively clear. If I do it 3 times, I will not vocalise the fourth and probably stop flowing. I understand and have suffered some of the issues that prevents speed, which provides a tangible competitive benefit, but I believe access prioritising the access of your opponents is more important.Theory/Framework/Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps.

Policy:
I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. I will always use judging criterion and impact framing explicated in the debate, but as a last resort, I will evaluate impacts independently - this isn't to say that I will always vote for high mag/low prob, but that I am more open to these than other judges.
Don't delay. Don't Object. Don't cheato veto. I have a low threshold.

K's:

I appreciate and think Kritikal arguments have done more good than harm for both the real world and debate; but I do believe that it can and has led to identities and peoples being weaponised, whether they wanted to or not. Beyond that, I believe that K's need to clearly explicate how the alt works, the world post alt, and good links. I'm willing to buy a K that doesn't do any of these, but if these get indicted by procedurals or arguments will be damning. I hate simple reject alt's.

I will try my best to understand your arguments, but please do not assume I know your literature base. I am probably more comfortable with pomo lit than any other lit, but you should still explain the basis of your arguments.

In the same vein, I think interps that are some version of "We can do it in this round" hold zero persuasiveness for my ballot. Not only do they not work as a good precedent for future rounds, but also they just also don't provide meaningful (to me) access to the standards debate.

General

Debate:
Condo is good. Multi-condo not so much. Don't try to understand my non-verbals, because I don't understand them. Sometimes I'm very expressive, sometimes I'm not.

I’m willing to buy terminal defence. The threshold for terminal defence In LD and policy, and other evidence-based debate is significantly lower.

It is significantly harder to win terminal defence in parli for me without independent concessions by both teams on clear brightlines.

Tech = truth

Flex time answers are binding.

Classical '19

Point Loma Nazarene University '23

NPTE Update: I strongly believe that NPTE is a tournament where innovation is at its center. Read your most unhinged arguments as long it doesn't get yourself cancelled. I'm willing to hear you out if you decide to push the limits on the amount of conditional advocacies you have, weird performance kritiks, or anything else you would be afraid to read in front of another judge.

TLDR: Read the arguments you want. I will flow and evaluate them. I will always vote on the execution of an argument rather than whether I think it is true or not. I have a slight preference for policy debates but I also like a well-executed Kritik debate. All of my preferences are just preferences and can be reversed through good debating.

Full Paradigm:

Top level things:

-As a caveat, everything in my paradigm is just my opinion and can be reversed through good debating.

-Tech>Truth.

-Nothing is at 0 or 100% risk. I evaluate debate as to which arguments have a higher risk and which ones are quantifiably bigger or implicate the debate on a deeper level.

-Debate determines risk until I'm told why it isn't.

-I don't have a problem voting for "lies" but I'd rather vote for true arguments.

-Some people whose opinions about the debate I admire are Chris Tai, Scott Wheeler, Raam Tambe, and Danish Khan.

-In my opinion, the negative does not read enough off-case positions most of the time.

-Judge instruction is underutilized but the team that uses it more will make the debate easier to decide.

Email chains are a big vibe: alexdebates109@gmail.com

My Decision Process:

Some habits in my decision process:

-I usually evaluate defense first, I usually vote for the least mitigated argument.

-I make the techiest decision, usually without explanation from the other team. I pay more attention to implications when left to my own devices.

I will do my best to actively assess who is ahead during the debate however, this does not mean an instant decision. I will try to give a timely well thought out decision as fast as I can because I believe it's the debaters job to debate their best, and the judges to be an active listener and decisionmaker which means to think critically through the debate as it goes on. The way I use this process is by assigning risk based on explanation and/or comparison of arguments. Usually, I base the way I assign risk of on dropped arguments, explanations, and comparisons between which arguments should be considered to be the nexus question of the debate and which should not. Just to be clear when I mention explanation, I don't mean explain your argument about what is but how it fits throughout the overall strategic context of the round. This means quantifying why your evidence proves that argument has a broader scope than your opponents. Absent reading evidence, I usually vote for the team that has best articulated why their argument's risk is higher or can be quantiified as much bigger. Good ev/argument comparison, framing arguments, and evidence that can be well explained in a strategic context can shift this process in your favor. The reason for my decisionmaking process is that I believe in tech over truth and I don't try to do alot of work people. Explanation is important but only in the context of me evaluating the debate in a purely technical way because I do not want to evaluate the relative truth claims of arguments as much as I can. That is not so say I am truth over tech, the process I just listed probably only applies if the debate is close. If an argument is dropped, it's dropped and I have SUPER LOW threshold for dropped arguments which I will vote on. The more you use the process above to direct my decision, the less my predispositions factor into the decision.

I believe that the evidence determines the scope of the argument. I.E if you powertag your extinction card but it only says small scenario for war, I'll probably not against a powertagged card if the other team points it out but I'll vote for lies in any other instance.

Online Specific Stuff:

-Go 85-90% of how fast you would go in an in-person round.

-I do not require you to turn your camera if you do not feel comfortable doing so.

-If you are reading blocks that are mostly analytics, slow down a bit because not all of us have the best internet connections.

Policy Paradigm:

Kritiks:

I am a mid judge for the kritik. I think that thesis claims and links are the most important part of the Kritik. Thesis level claims should forward a description of the world that filters how I evaluate the other parts of the Kritik. For example, if you read antiblackness or Psychoanalysis, you would want to win arguments such as Blackness is ontological, Psychoanalysis is true, or the state is irredeemable. Links should be about the plan, not just rant about why a certain ideology is bad. I'm probably the worst for the K on the alt. If you don't have a K that relies heavily on winning the thesis, you should focus on winning the alt the most. I don't think I'm in the automatically assuming that the alt doesn't do anything camp but I'm not deep enough into K lit to make extrapolations based on certain buzzwords or phrases. Referencing specific lines of aff evidence that show that the aff is the ideology you are Kritiking will go far. Aff teams should leverage their aff against the K way more imho. I understand Kritik's are multifaceted and have many ways to win on them, so both sides should explain why the parts of the Kritik debate they are winning matter if you decide to divert from my preferences.

T vs Policy Aff:

Plans should be topical. Painting a scary version of the topic that creates an unreasonable research burden for the negative is always a good strategy. Depicting a litany of affs that the 2N cannot prepare for is fine. If you make a ground argument, explain why the specific Affs, Disads, or Counterplans are necessary for your side to have a fair chance at winning rather than just saying we lose "x" ground without explanation as to why that ground is necessary in the first place.

T vs K aff:

I prefer that the affirmative read a topical plan but that is not a deal-breaker. I recognize that some Kritikal affirmatives have a great deal of value and are some of the best arguments in debate read by the best debaters but a lot of K affs are part of a phase that some debaters have where they want to be a "K debater" because it's fun, new, or more interesting. Rants aside, my preferences are just that; my preferences, I will ultimately vote for the team that does the better debating in the most technical way possible in every debate I judge no matter what argument the debaters read.

If you develop 1-3 pieces of good offense, I will be more inclined to vote aff. In general, the whole "we're a discussion of the resolution" argument is a decent counter-interpretation but the more aff takes the side of the discussion that affirms the action of the resolution, the more likely I'll vote aff. Redefining the words of resolution can be good too. I think that affirmatives that don't have the grammar of a plan but still affirm the action of the resolution like the "No is illegal" aff from the immigration topic are up for debate because it still gave some ground (but not enough) to the negative. Anything that goes in the direction of carte blanche rejection of the topic will be a harder sell.

If you are against a kritikal affirmative, I think that procedural fairness is the most tangible impact that my ballot has an effect over. I prefer if you read standards that engage or turn the aff's offense or demonstrate that their description of the world and debate is inaccurate or problematic. DO NOT argue racism, sexism, homophobia good, etc. but challenge the operationalization of the aff's theory in the debate by reading standards that challenge the scope of the claim that the 1AC forwards.

General Policy Stuff:

- Framing is a supplement, not a substitute for answering disads.

- Read arguments that justify the educational model of how we talk about impacts. Things "Learning about extinction is valuable" or "Extinction prediction education is bad"

-If you are reading a soft left, read arguments about extinction prediction models fail rather than some ethical orientation about immediate violence comes first.

-Debate in meta-level characterizations that tell the story of the debate. COMPARE arguments. Say things like link speaks to a broader event that the aff causes or the link evidence only describes a small event that the aff outweighs. OR "the aff's advantage is minuscule but the disad is huge because they conceded "x", "y", and "z" argument.

Counterplans:

Read them. There's not much to say here. Read a counterplan. Make sure it solves a sufficient part of the aff. Define what is a sufficient amount of the aff is solved by the counterplan and vice versa for the aff. Ideally point to lines in the evidence that identify these thresholds for solvency. Quantify counterplan solvency/solvency deficits by telling how big or a small counterplan solvency or the solvency deficit is. Solvency advocates for counterplans are helpful but not having one isn't a deal breaker.

Disads:

I evaluate them probabilistically and usually don't vote on arguments that are direct yes/no questions. Make arguments about the Aff/Disad having higher risk is the way to go for me. I care more about the impact debate than I used to but the link is still most important. Politics Disads are good and they teach valuable political forecasting skills that are extremely useful in the field of political science like making predictions about the political ramifications of political action in a probabilistic manner.

Theory:

The debate determines whether a counterplan is legitimate or not as well as any other theoretical question. All things equal, I default negative on condo, states, international counterplans, PICs, and process counterplans. If you are to go for theory, make arguments about why the negative promotes a model of debate that creates worse education or lower quality arguments rather than some claim about why it makes debate too hard for you. Counterplan theory aside, I'm agnostic. You don't have to have an interpretation but it would better if you did. Don't blaze through blocks. Do line by line.

LD paradigm:

- All of the policy stuff applies.

- I have little to no comprehension of "phil" or techy strategies germane to LD and I will evaluate "phil" like a Kritik. The closer you are to policy debate, the happier everyone will be with my decision.

- I think condo is good but I find condo bad to be more debatable in LD than in policy.

-My initial thoughts is that "Nebel" or "T: Whole Res" is a ridiculous argument. I think that it opens up the aff to all sorts of ridiculous PICs. However, I won't reject the argument on face but arguments about format distinctions between LD and Policy and justifications for why this interpretation pushes better solvency advocates will make this a more tenable argument when reading it in front of me.

Parli Paradigm:

-All of the policy stuff applies except for the card-specific stuff.

-Speed theory is a tougher sell, It's uncomfortable having to evaluate a debater on debater debate.

Speaker Points:

I start at a 28 and work up or down from there.

27 - Still learning

28 - Alright

28.5 to 29 - You probably can break

29.5 and above - Semis/Finals

Updated: September 2023

In debate, the most important thing to me by far is fairness. Fairness gets a lot of lip service in debate and is frequently treated like any other piece on the game board, which is to say that it is wielded as a tool to win rounds, but that isn’t what I mean. I don’t think fairness is an impact in the same way nuclear war or even education are. Fairness is a legitimate, ethical consideration that exists on the gameboard and above it, and as such, weighs heavily in how I make decisions.

In the context of the game itself, all arguments and strategies exist upon a continuum from a mythical “completely fair” to an equally mythical “completely unfair”. I am willing to vote on the vast majority of arguments regardless of where they fall on this continuum, but it is certainly an uphill battle to win those that I perceive as falling closer to “completely unfair.” Arguments that I would say are meaningfully unfair include:

- Conditional Strategies (Especially multiple conditional advocacies)

- Untopical Affirmatives

- Vacuous Theory (think Sand paradox or anything a high school LD student would find funny)

- Arguing Fairness is bad (obvi)

- Obfuscating

In the context of things that occur above the board, I similarly observe this fairness continuum but am even less likely to vote for these unfair tactics because I view them as a conscious decision to exclude people from this space. I view the following as falling closer to the unfair part of the continuum:

- Refusing to slow down when spreading

- Using highly technical debate strategies against new debaters

- Being bigoted in any way

I tend to find myself most frequently voting for arguments that I perceive as more fair and that I understand and feel comfortable explaining in my RFD. With all of this said, I have voted on Aff Ks, theory I didn’t especially like, and conditional strategies, I just want to be upfront that those ballots are certainly more the exception than the norm.

Background: I am the director of debate at Diablo Valley College, I competed in LD and NPDA at the University of the Pacific for 3 years and then was an assistant coach for the team during grad school. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.