Nueva Parli Invitational
2020 — San Mateo, CA/US
Pascal Descollonges Paradigm
I'm a sophomore varsity parli debater for The Nueva School. I'd like to think I'm not completely incompetent at it. I have 3 years of parliamentary experience, you can look me up if you really care about my competitive record.
I'm comfortable with circuit parliamentary debate, meaning that I'm probably down for whatever you want to read as long as it isn't violent. I think content warnings are good. Don't exclude people if you want my ballot or to be a decent person.
Tech>truth for ballots.
In terms of warranting, if you give me a full citation for a warrant, then I will a. check the warrant post-round and pre-decision with a drop the debater mindset if I'm pretty sure you're making this up, or drop the warrant if I can't find it but could reasonably have missed it in order to discourage evidence fabrication and b. give your argument precedence in any one-team-says-yes-and-other-says-no scenario. If you don't give me a full cite (author, source, date), it's equivalent to making the claim for me.
I will buy any argument you make unless contested. An argument is a claim and a warrant. It doesn't matter how good the warrant is until it is contested.
I'd like texts for long, complicated, or hyper-specific advocacies. I'd also like you to slow down and repeat all texts.
I'm very down to hear a good kritikal debate. I'm not going to be happy if you make me listen to bad kritikal debate (this is especially true if you are reading off a backfile you don't understand).
I'm pretty comfortable with cap, sec, queer theory, and some disability based arguments. I've read some, but not very much, so don't assume I know your arguments. I'm very down for performative Ks, especially if they are interesting.
I'm down for KvK debate or theory as long as it isn't problematic.
I’m going to at least drop your speaks and treat your arguments with extreme skepticism if you use K's as a tool to win because your opponents don’t understand what you are talking about. This is especially true if you don’t take POIs. I’m generally unimpressed by any argument that tries to turn inaccessibility for majorities, because I think it bites hard into forced outing.
I'm down to hear any type of theory or T argument. I've ran friv and justified versions of both. I default to whatever you do in the round is legit until proven otherwise, but my thresholds for different things are different. I default competing interps (meaning an offense-defense model of what debate should be like), drop the argument, and RVI’s are theoretically legitimate. Interp texts are binding.
I think reasonability means whatever I think is reasonable, i.e. my opinion.
Please read a counterinterp.
I'll intervene against friv T in identity-based rounds.
I think the counterinterp of spec if asked solves pretty much all bad spec shells, so be careful when running these.
Theory used to exclude is not OK, and will not go well for you.
I like CP's in general. CPs that compete on net benefits are definitely defensive. Mutually exclusive CP's can technically be offensive, but don't do that unless you really know how to do it well.
I think the PIC is good in some cases and bad in others, depending on the number of topical affs among other things.
Delay CPs, consult CPs, research CPs, etc. are all probably bad.
Condo is fine, multi-condo might be bad. Please kick out of all but one CP if they are exclusive. Please kick explicitly. I won't judge-kick.
Competing interps theory can override any of these preferences.
The perm is a test of competition in case rounds. Please tell me what your perm is (perm do both vs perm do one then the other)
I like nuanced case debate. I love good politics, but please make it good. I'm pretty well informed in general, but don't assume-brief explanations are your friend.
I think most people under-leverage uniqueness and impacts and under-prep internal links. You are more likely to get my ballot if you do not do these things.
DA’s should be offensive.
I'm not very experienced, so please explain well.
I'm not very experienced, so please explain well. I'll intervene against tricks in identity-based rounds.
Please don't be violent. Debate is already inherently violent enough without competitors contributing. I'll intervene against the following:
Non-black afropess (“ON NON-BLACK AFROPESSIMISM.”)
In-round harassment or purposeful leveraging of power dynamics to gain a competitive edge
Use of slurs against a minority
Impact turning or denying structural violence
Depending on severity and intention, I will either intervene or drop speaks to 0 against the following:
Excluding using tech arguments
Making arguments that are violent towards someone in round
Most other problematic arguments/actions, especially unintentionally, will result in speak deductions of 2-5 points (this includes misgendering)
I can be persuaded to vote teams down for things other than this, these are just my defaults. I'm also comfortable and probably will intervene on certain forms of anti-queer and ableist violence. I may intervene on other forms of violence, but because of my own position as a wealthy white man, I'm less comfortable doing so. If you feel as though there has been violence enacted against you in round, I'm very comfortable voting on that. If you aren't comfortable sharing that, I can't do much with my ballot, but I'm more than happy to talk after the round. Debate can suck sometimes. If there's anything I can do to make the round better for you, please let me know.
I'll distribute a 29.2, 29.1, 29.0, and 28.9 in most rounds. Feel completely free to ignore this ranking. I'll give you a 30 if you impress me in some way. I'll give you low speaks if you are exclusionary and/or violent. I'll buy 30 speaks theory, but wouldn't recommend running it: I think it's a bad time trade-off.
If you request a 30, I'll give you one. This is the best way I know at the moment to mitigate the harms of systematic discrimination in speaker points.
I default to death, dehumanization, and suffering bad. I'm most comfortable with util and structural violence, but I'm down to evaluate pretty much anything. Please weigh your impacts. Meta-weighing is also good. Extinction is infinite is wrong, but I'll buy it. I default to epistemic modesty, basically meaning I multiply the chance your framework is correct by what I should do if it is, and sum over that.
I can handle clear spreading at parli speeds, I'll let you know if you are going too fast or not clearly enough. I'll try my best to avoid clearing you, and instead slowing you, and only when you are going fast or trying to go fast, because I recognize that that can be violent. I'd like this to become a circuit norm. If you spread to exclude, don't slow when asked, or don't take POI's while spreading, you are going to loose speaks and maybe the round. I think you probably don't need to spread in about 95% of rounds, but you do you.
Call the POO. I'll protect, but I'll give benefit of the doubt to "it's not new" unless you call the POO. I'll protect less the more complex rounds get, because it's harder for me to evaluate and you need it less.
I'll do cross-aps against golden turns but no other work.
I think it's rare new warrants in the PMR actually matter. I'll evaluate these case by case. I evaluate new layering arguments case by case.
I short-circuit/lazy evaluate POO's for my own mental sanity: I won't evaluate POOs unless necessary to decide a round.
I don't really see a good reason to shake hands. If you really want to, then we can, but in general, I'm not a fan (see Alan Fishman's paradigm for a discussion on this).
I don't care about formal dress, whether you stand up or sit down (Except if we're in a room with others, in which case I prefer you sit down and speak more softly, but it's not a huge deal), or how well you respect the traditions of the British Parliament.
I don't mind tag teaming, unless the speaker is unwilling or you are being rude.
Feel free to discuss my decision with me unless I say otherwise. Don't expect me to change it or admit I was wrong.
I'm probably going to disclose.
If your response to every POI is "you don't understand", then you did a really crappy job at explaining your case.
Ameet Dhillon Paradigm
Sebastian Francese Paradigm
Dylan Jaggar Paradigm
Kathryn Jay Paradigm
Suresh Kalenahalli Paradigm
In terms of speaking, please be slow, loud, and clear. Do not run attrocious Kritiks, and explain any topicality arguments. Please explain any debate jargon if used. I would like signposting and clear arguments that I can flow.
Keri Klein Paradigm
I am a parent judge for parliamentary debate.
I appreciate clarity of argument and signposting. Please avoid jargon, spreading.
Chunchi Ma Paradigm
I am relatively new as a judge for debate, so essentially what I value from debate teams are:
concise and clear speech, not too fast, logical arguments, backed up with empirical evidence and past precedence, data and stats. I have a background in engineering and financial service, so I am used to data driven decision making, and will weigh more heavily on economical impacts in terms of net benefits. I am open minded, so which team is able to deliver their messages and convince me the most will likely be the winner of the round.
Do not try running theory, unless it's very critical to the round. If you do run, make sure I understand exactly, what the theory shell is, and WHY it is absolutely important. Theory that is run should then be a priori, and make sure you repeat the situation and why.
Darren Mo Paradigm
This is my first time judging a formal debate. I am an engineer, so my debate criteria may be different from what you are accustomed to. I will most likely be struggling to keep up with all of your arguments, so I will not be able to give feedback.
# Debate Criteria
- Speak at a pace that an outsider can follow
- Avoid obscure terms if a more common word conveys the same meaning
- Avoid redundant words
- Structure your thoughts
- Agree on the meaning of the topic with your opponent before debating
- Prefer facts or data over guesses
- Provide evidence to support the credibility of your facts/data
- Use sound logic
- Respectful attitude
- Respond to all points
Alexander Pakter Paradigm
Observe Silence when not Speaking: Please respect the speaking team by observing silence when it is not your turn. If you need to communicate with you partner, do it on paper. DO NOT WHISPER while the other team is speaking.
No tag-teaming - do not interject or add onto your partner's speech.
Debate Speed: Keep your speech at a normal, conversational pace. If I cannot keep up with you, then I will not be able to consider your arguments thoroughly. You will be better served by having fewer, well articulated arguments than by trying to cram in extra points.
Theory: Arguments based in theory will be considered, but I don't give a lot of weight to them. I care most about your ideas and ability to structure an argument.
Presentation is important: eye contact, posture, clarity of speech and appropriate volume. Please speak loudly and clearly enough for me to hear you.
15 second grace period to finish your speech after time, after that you will loose speaker points.
Kriti Sharma Paradigm
- Presentation High School - Class of 2015 - 3 years of Lincoln-Douglas Debate, 4 years of Speech
- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Class of 2019 - 2 years of Parli, LD, and Speech (Interp)
- Add me to the dropbox/the email chain/wtvr: firstname.lastname@example.org
Things I Like
- Environmental & Systemic Impacts
- Plan-specific links, disads, and CPs
- Impact calculus that isn't just about magnitude
- Clever CX
- Clear roadmaps
- Good speaks
Things I Dislike
- Accidental racism, sexism, etc. that isn't corrected with an appropriate apology
- Men talking over female debaters
- Climate Change Denial
- Affs that aren't topical
- Avoiding clash in the debate
- Both debaters speaking during the same speech outside of prompting
Things That Will Cause You To Lose
- Any kind of harassment or intentional 'isms'
- Referring to immigrants as "illegal"
- Clipping cards, manufacturing evidence, or otherwise cheating
Cards should be used as logical support for your contentions. I especially respect empirical evidence and real-world examples. Evidence means nothing until you link it to your case and the resolution. Explain why the evidence brought up matters. For me, content is what counts. I am more likely to weigh evidence if the content is thoroughly covered and does have a fair impact in the round.
If you run T, do it right. T is a question of "is the aff topical." Break it down. Read cards on it. Do not use T as a time skew. If you choose to run T, make sure that you have a version of the aff that is topical.
I will vote on these if they are convincing and if legitimate and compelling evidence is used and explained to back up the argument. Simply make sure that they are actually competitive against the aff, and tell me why I should vote on it. As for the aff side, please explain why I should vote accordingly with your own evidence and reasoning.
If you use K, explain it as clearly as possible since K should never be used to make yourself, as a debater, sound more like a genius or to inflate your own ego; nor should it be used to force your opponent to respond to it even if it isn't topical (aka abusive argumentation).
If run and explained well, I will weigh it in the round. "Reject the argument, not the team" is generally sufficient, but I am familiar with some other theory if you decide to use it. That being said, still explain the theory as well as the reason why the theory argument applies; do not just name drop it or leave it underdeveloped.
Framework (Value and Value Criterion)
I love framework debate. Framework is fundamental in high school LD Debate, so while you read each contention, I expect you to outline a clear connections back to your value criterion as well as back to your value (like a link chain). Contentions should contain smaller arguments for why your V/VC is the most ideal/most pertinent/most important etc. Make your lines of reasoning explicit. I may have an idea as to where you're going with your thoughts, but I can't write down these said ideas if you don't fully elaborate on them yourself.
- I'm generally okay with some speed/spreading, but I'm a stickler for clarity. If you're going too fast, I will say "Clear" so you know that you have to slow down in order for me to follow the flow.
- Follow your roadmaps. If you have to divert, be clear about where you are going on the flow. Please verbally emphasize and tag your arguments/evidence. Also, I definitely appreciate when debaters "write the flow for me"/crystallize/discuss voting issues towards the end of the round.
- I use a standard speaks system. Speak up and enunciate, but don't yell. Unless you need a lot of improvement, I wont give you less than 26. If I give you anywhere between 26-28.5, I'll explain what you need to improve. To get 29-30: As I'm also a speechie, I'll admit that I'm 5% lay judge at heart, so I definitely value confident, straightforward, eloquent, succinct, expressive delivery.
- I'm open to any argument as long as it is not offensive.
- As always, be respectful towards your opponent. That being said, I do enjoy clash/if you are a clever asshole during CX. However, try not to be too smug. Channel your inner Spock (for ST nerds - I mean TOS Spock).
- If you have any questions about your case, high school/college debate in general, or want to talk about college life, feel free to find me at the tournament or email me! :)
Jen Tang Paradigm
Bali Vegesna Paradigm
Ajay Virginkar Paradigm
Eugenia Xu Paradigm
Last Updated 1/12/2020
*Please please please do not read any argument on suicide in front of me / provide graphic descriptions of anything mental health related without content warnings. Consequences may include me not being able to evaluate the debate or speak up about the fact that I cannot think about the debate resulting in me having no choice but to give you an auto loss & 0 speaks. Also, do not ask me why I can't engage with these arguments, I am under no obligation to answer that question even if I know you. I feel like this is a given but apparently it isn't. I think content warnings are good. If you want me to know anything message me on Facebook (just search “Eugenia Xu”) or email me at email@example.com before the round and I'll do whatever I can to help.
tl;dr Read whatever you want as long as it’s not problematic. I’m kind of a K hack but I will be sad if they’re bad. plsplsplsnohandshakes
Hi I’m eug, I'm currently a junior debating in parli for the Nueva High School and I don't think I'm too terrible at it...? I have 3 years of background debating in parli & 4 weeks of VBI + lurking in the community worth of experience in LD. I also mod the facebook page Bad Debate Opinions (shameless plug), most of the self-deprecating jokes are me. I am a wannabe meme.
My pronouns are they/them. I have 0 tolerance for purposeful misgendering but I also don't expect everyone to be perfect.
I lean tech>truth starting from the 1AC; as the debate goes on I lean more truth>tech. I have a pretty high threshold for warranting, i.e. if you read an argument without a warrant I won’t evaluate it (if you assert that the plan helps the economy but give no explanation I won’t evaluate that argument). That applies to impacts, I default death, dehumanization and suffering bad, but you have to tell me what “economy” means in terms of those three things. All of my defaults can be disregarded if that argumentation is made in round. I've debated a lot of different things and I think I will have the ability to evaluate *most of* what you want to read. I do want you to slow down & repeat all advocacy texts and theory interps twice. I will be very happy if you pass me a text but I won’t ask you to unless it’s ridiculously long.
You can speak pretty in front of me but that's not going to improve your chances of winning or your speaker points.
Default to accessibility questions>K>theory>case and Metatheory>T>Theory but do what you want.
Ethics: Probably the most important part of my paradigm. I will auto drop you & give you 0 speaks if you impact turn/ deny structural violence & its impacts (i.e. arguments like racism good, ableism doesn't exist, antiqueerness has little/no impact, etc. This does not include arguments like cap good unless the argument is cap good because poverty good). Also auto drop & 0 speaks for using slurs. Sure, debate is a game but games can have impacts outside of the gameboard and I refuse to support argumentation that pushes marginalized communities out of debate even more by giving my ballot to them. Based on my own subject position I’m way more comfortable intervening against orientalist, linguistic, antiqueer/trans, & sexist violence, as well as certain forms of ableist violence. Doesn’t mean I won’t intervene against other kinds of violence, it just means that I’m a lot more hesitant to, say, as a solidly wealthy private school kid, decide what is and isn’t classist for other people because that seems pretty problematic.
T+Theory: I'm all for theory, I think it's really fun, and I’ve been known to read questionably theoretically legitimate shells at points in my career. My defaults are competing interps (as an offense-defense paradigm) > reasonability, drop the argument, and no RVIs. I'm very down to evaluate frivolous theory (which obviously is subjective and I’m not sure I can provide a brightline yet) though I’ll have a much higher threshold for warranting. Read a counterinterp, even if it isn’t tagged as one, make it clear what world(s) of debate that is an alternative to the interp you are defending. Text of the interp > spirit of the interp, meaning I’m binding you to the exact wording of the interpretation of debate you read, not what I arbitrarily thought you meant by it. I’m willing to be more interventionist when it comes to 2AC theory. OCIs (offensive counterinterps, meaning counterinterpretations that are read offensively; i.e. as something the reader of the interp violates) are lowkey fake but I’ll evaluate them. I’m pretty convinced that RVIs against 2AC theory are good but that’s not my default. I really like theory with K esque impacts because it's my two favorite things in debate colliding.
I’m pretty much down for whatever as far as theory goes (in terms of the shells you read or in terms of the dubiously theoretically legitimate arguments you make), but there are a few admittedly slightly arbitrary lines that can be pretty iffy for me: 1) bad (aka 99% of) spec shells, I will have a high threshold for warranting & also be very sad to vote on them; 2) ridiculously gerrymandered interps, once again, high threshold for warranting I’ll be sad; 3) frivolous theory in a round where there are serious arguments about identity being made, I WILL intervene against them.
Case: Despite what my debate career & the rest of my paradigm indicate, I'm totally down to evaluate case, but if the resolution is a bill, about a specific person, or is generally a bit obscure, do not expect me to know about it & please at least have a brief explanation. Down to vote for generics though I’d enjoy the debate more if the generics were less generic and more specific.
Framework / Impact framing: Do what you want, I'm familiar with utilitarianism & structural violence. I'm frankly bad at phil debate but I think I vaguely know how to evaluate it, chill with y’all reading consequentialism / truth testing as long as y’all explain things. I default to epistemic modesty, meaning I evaluate the strength of the impact x how much they’re winning their framework. Please do some meta weighing, it’s not done nearly enough. I default epistemic modesty.
Ks: *DO NOT READ AFROPESS IF YOU ARE NOT BLACK. I am inclined to autodrop nonblack debaters who read afropess; I’m still conflicted as to whether I as a nonblack person should be doing the callout in this way but for now this seems like the best solution. If you want to know why I think this is problematic, I’d recommend directly reading Zion Dixon, Joshua Porter, and Quinn Hughes’s article “ON NON-BLACK AFROPESSIMISM.”
(for my novices, you can probably ignore this section J)
I like K strats, but they tend to either be REALLY bad or REALLY good with nothing in between. I’m more of an identity politics person than a high theory person but read whatever you want on either side of the res. Performances are cool, I’ve done quite a few of those. Very familiar (in the context of parli) with disability studies, kw/queer theory, and generics (cap, sec, biopower, etc). Have dabbled in DnG, race, setcol, and forms of fem, though don’t read any fem K in front of me that isn’t transfem or a race-based feminist criticism. Outside of strictly debate contexts I’ve looked a bit at art (particularly poetry) and magic/witchcraft/the like as revolutionary action, mostly in queer, disabled and decolonial contexts. I’ve read both optimistic and pessimistic arguments and understand how both function, though I’ve also explored what it means to reject the optimism/pessimism binary. I will actually cry if you read degger. Read T-USfg if you must, I’m more partial to it against high theory than identity politics but I’m willing to vote on it as long as it isn’t read in a problematic way. KvK is fun. Read Ks in front of me if you want feedback on a K project.
DON’T STEAL SCHOLARSHIP. Being an ally is different from speaking for others. Don’t be part of the problem.
I have 0 tolerance for kids spreading other people out with Ks and making it impossible for them to interact with their arguments. I'm probably gonna yeet your speaks pretty badly. This is the reason why K debate gets a bad rep in parli in the first place.
Speed is fine as long as both teams are comfortable with it, I'll clear you if I can't understand you but I won't penalize you for it because it's kind of bs for me to assume you know my limit on any given day. I will, however, penalize you if you refuse to accommodate your opponents when they can't understand you. I will also be skeptical if you continuously clear your opponents but speak faster than the speed you've slowed them to.
Speaks are arbitrary and I default giving every debater a 29 unless someone did something problematic outlined in my paradigm; unless I explicitly said that those actions were ones I’d give a 0 & L for, think incremental decreases in speaker points and likely nothing higher than a 27. If the tournament insists that I give different speaker points to everyone, I’ll change speaker points in increments of 0.1 so that the difference between the highest and lowest speaker is as tiny as possible. I won’t intervene against 30 speaks though I’ll squint really hard and judgmentally at you.
I protect against new arguments in the rebuttals but I'm not gonna get mad at points of order. If you POO more than twice and I think your POOs are correct I'll probably be a little more attentive to new arguments. I always say that it’s “under consideration” even if the POO is blatantly correct or false. Weighing isn’t new unless that argumentation is made. Layering arguments aren’t new unless there was a reasonable place in which the layering argument could have been before the rebuttal. New warrants usually don’t end up mattering in the scheme of the debate; in the case that one warrant makes the difference a W and a L; if it ends up mattering I’ll use the same logic of if the warrant could have come up earlier. That is also how I largely evaluate reclarifications of arguments.
Fact/value are not really my cup of tea in parli. Though I think value debate can be done well I don't really believe that fact debates can, though feel free to prove me wrong (it will take a lot). 100% totally down with framing fact/value as policy / fact as value & also totally down with Ks. Kind of very skeptical of trichot as drop the debater (or the idea that there’s a trichotomy of resolutions in general, tbh) & I'll be very sad if I have to vote on it. I think "more harm than good" = value but debate those resolutions how you want, I'm not going to intervene. In value debates, pls justify your v/vc and tell me what it means for me to evaluate arguments under your framework (i.e. theory of good and theory of right, tell me what I value and how I value it). Again, epistemic modesty.
I love you but please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE I don't do handshakes (like seriously, fist bumps r dope)
After having a lovely conversation about this, I've decided that I will treat all final answers to POIs as binding statements to avoid a floofton of chaos that could ensue if that were not true. (s/o to Alan Fishman)
I'm probably going to disclose my decision to you & give feedback. If it takes me forever, I’ll probably tell you that it’ll be in your rfd / feedback section but if it isn’t there feel free to message / email me. Feel free to discuss my decision with me if you think I'm missing something but don't try to argue with me / push me to change my decision.
Debate however you're comfortable! I have 0 business policing your body.
I kind of really don't forking care if you swear as long as it's not done in a derogatory way.
If I am in any way making the round uncomfortable (i.e. if I ask an uncomfortable question, if I misgender you, use a term that I reclaim for my own identity that oppresses you in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable, allowing a team to mansplain at you, say something problematic, etc.) please do tell me if you feel safe doing so & we can discuss what I can do to make you feel more comfortable, or if you just want to get mad at me that’s fine too. This will not impact my decision or the speaker points I give you. Callouts & accountability are good and I welcome them at any time J That being said there’s a difference between calling me out for doing something problematic and mansplaining debate to me or invalidating my experiences. The latter I won’t listen to.
Remember that at the end of the day, we all lose rounds we shouldn’t have and whether you win or lose a round in front of me is not at all indicative of your value as a person or as a debater!
If you're confused about anything message me! 0 judgment if you do & 0 judgment if you don't message me because talking to people is hard.