[[ ]] LAST UPDATED: post-toc 2022. mostly changes for clarity no real significant content changes.
[[ ]] i realized that there are a lot of words on this paradigm. you can email me with questions or use ctrl + f because i mention a lot of specifics and you can probably find what you're looking for somewhere here.
[[ ]] About Me:
- i've heard pretty commonly that people cant find this so im putting it closer to the top and bolding it so people that dont read my paradigm (which is annoying and you should finish reading it so the round can be more enjoyable for the both of us) can find it: yes i want to be on the chain, my email is email@example.com
- 2 years of circuit debate at plano west, have been involved in debate in some capacity since 2015. graduated hs in 2021, now "debating" (we went to one regional last season lol) for UTD as a 2n. mostly read kritiks relating to poststructuralism and capitalism in high school, reading policymaking arguments more now.
- i judged a total of 125 debates in the 2022 season and all of them were LD but i really want to judge policy more and most of this paradigm is applicable there as well.
--- if you care: toc qualled 1x, bid 1x and at-larged. multiple bid rounds, rr invites, all of that stuff.
- big influences in debate are patrick fox and alexis antonakakis. read their paradigms, i agree with them both broadly. they coached me in high school. i think the paradigm i vibe the most with is zac's (who i dont know super well but we're twitter mutuals so we're basically besties).
- conflicts (22-23): westlake ak, los altos bf
- i really dont like being called judge. call me dylan. judge is better than being misgendered tho.
[[ ]] For E-Debate:
- dont record others unless they consent. preferably keep a local copy if you are comfortable, in case your speech cuts out.
- keep your camera on if you are comfortable. i understand there are a lot of reasons people wouldn't want to have it on, you wont be penalized if you dont. this is extra important for the toc - people are ending their careers and it's morbidly depressing to end it online and it's even worse when all the screens are blank.
- more pen time would be nice. i need you to add a little bit of space between cards either with a breath or a .5 second pause. my flow will get very messy otherwise, which isnt something you want.
[[ ]] For NON E-Debate:
- wear a mask when not speaking or its a 25. i will have a box to give you one if you dont have one. i will warn you once and politely ask you to put it on, after which i will give you the 25.
- you still should not be recording without both debaters consent. i will always be okay with you recording a debate that i'm involved in unless you're asked not to.
[[ ]] Top level:
- the tl;dr of the rest of this paradigm is that i want you to do you. i would much rather judge a good debate with arguments im unfamiliar with than a bad k v k debate. being blippy and trying to avoid clash is a good way to lose rounds in front of me. running away from debate, contestation, and clash makes me angry. nuanced and well-thought-out debate makes me happy and will be rewarded with higher speaks. i generally like debate in most forms, and will be happy to judge any debate you want to have.
- for quick prefs: best for k v k, clash, and policy v policy rounds (in that order). okay-ish for phil and theory. bad for tricks, meanness, and frivolous nonsense.
- zero tolerance for bigotry or violence. its an L0 as well as a conversation with your coach. if it affects you in round i err on the side of giving you the agency to decide what happens with the round unless its super egregious.
--- if something has happened to you outside of round that makes you uncomfortable debating it for whatever reason, email me and i will do my best to make sure you feel safe and comfortable. the only argument about out of round practices that i am comfortable voting on is that abusers should take Ls, and i will end the round early if it's made, HOWEVER i think that you should tell me about it beforehand so i can try to do something in tabroom as opposed to adjudicating the debate in this way because i think it's much easier to justify, more productive, and means that you dont have to interact with the person you're supposed to debate.
--- re: misgendering. 0 tolerance for it. if you misgender me i will be very mad at you and you will lose speaks. if its egregious i will hand you the L. if you misgender ur opponent and they mention it you will lose with 0 speaks. you probably wont do it again. email me or tell me verbally and preferably tell me what you want me to do if ur misgendered.
[[ ]] K:
- big fan of the k. i will vote on it. i know most about this kind of debate and its where i feel most comfortable. i like most forms of the kritik and do not understand why people draw a distinction between high theory and other literature since most if not all literature is interconnected and authors build upon each other frequently. i do think though that i have read the most post-structuralist literature compared to anything else because that's what im personally interested in the most.
- explain arguments. if i dont understand an argument, i cant really see myself voting for it. what i know about an author before the round should mostly be irrelevant because you should be doing the necessary legwork so that i know what im voting for. making actual arguments >>>> rambling about pre-fiat offense and saying nothing.
- specificity is good. this applies to links, contextualization, and explanation. pretty much every part of the debate should in some way be responsive and contextualized to the aff.
- non-black afropess/nihlism teams should strike me. i do not want to hear these arguments from non-black people. i will give you an L25 if the argument is made that you should not be reading this. i will give you no higher than a 27 independent of arguments being made.
- one thing that i will note is that i am deeply unsettled by the meta in K debate which seems to be recycling antiblackness arguments and changing them to fit other identity categories. "surrender to X" is what first comes to my mind here but there are tons of other examples. this makes me uncomfortable and unhappy. exploring ur identity in the debate space is a great thing, but i'll ask that you do it in a way that is unique to you and doesnt steal from antiblackness scholarship. it's parasitic and weird.
- re: performance: i really like performance and non-traditional weird strats in debate but i also often feel that performance is leveraged in a weird way by many teams. i think that, in order to access some sort of offense via performance, it needs to be a larger part of your speech than just a brief portion of speech time dedicated to a poem or something and then going back to spreading through cards in the way a traditional policy team would.
[[ ]] K (aff specific things):
- i like critical affirmatives and it's the type of aff i'm most familiar with. i will vote on them.
- these affs should do something and be able to articulate what they do. if 1ac cross ends and i do not know what your aff does, im gonna assume its nothing and have a low threshold for presumption.
- becoming increasingly convinced that these affs don't get perms in methods debates. defend something and this will change.
- you should read cards to respond to impact turns, doing otherwise is almost certainly a guaranteed L.
[[ ]] Policymaking:
- i like these debates. yes you should still explain your arguments, poorly explained scenarios are still hard for me to justify voting for and i feel like policy people have become convinced that their arguments are somehow less deserving of explanation as opposed to something like a kritik. this is, in my opinion, wrong and makes debates significantly worse.
--- the best debate i have judged so far this season was a policy throwdown. i enjoy these debate a lot.
- ghoulish impact turns teetering on violent will make me upset (high food prices good, disease/pandemics good, etc.) and your speaks are capped at a 26.
- i think that conditionality is good and i think that all forms of counterplans are probably good. i am hard-pressed to vote on condo or x type of cp bad. i have voted on both before, its not impossible to win in front of me, but it requires a near concession.
--- i do not think that condo has a limit but this can change based on the context. material in round abuse makes condo more compelling although i tend to think abuse is the result of a skill issue
- i've found that my decisions will often take 15+ minutes in these debates because i am reading evidence. this goes to show how much i think evidence quality matters and i truly think that the quality of your evidence will win/lose you debates in front of me.
- counterplans with manufactured exclusivity are bad [read] and i'll be much better for CPs that actually compete with the aff and are grounded in the topic lit as opposed to silly "kill the president" or "nuke russia if plan" counterplans.
- i've found that i really really like good case debate. like actually good case debating that is specific and nuanced. do with that what you will.
[[ ]] framework:
- yes i vote on framework. this means, i expect, i will sit in a lot of these debates which i'm fine with. on a capital T truth level i disagree with framework but i dont think this should discourage you from reading it because paradoxically i think my voting record is somewhere around 60-40 on the side of framework because K teams arent wonderful at responding. conversely i think framework teams lose often when they literally never talk about the aff which is super common in these debates and makes me really upset.
- for the negative: pick one argument and go for it instead of going for a smattering of impacts that never get robustly explained or contextualized to the aff. i tend to think the easiest way to get my ballot is to talk about the aff (fairness people take notes) and the people that lose it never do this.
- for the aff: i think that affs that discuss the topic are far better off in these debates than affs that never mention the topic. i think the reason k teams often lose these debates is because of lazy aff construction that avoids any sort of engagement with the substance of the topic. i do not care what you say about the topic but you should at least say something if you want my ballot. you should also probably tell me what the role of debate is in the world of the aff and what debates look like but i have voted on straight impact turns before and can see myself doing it again.
[[ ]] T:
- i am not a huge fan of T debates when they are vacuous (see: T whole res)
- having counter-definitions for words in the resolution and being able to compare different competing definitions is good. having a caselist is also pretty important - you should be able to articulate which arguments are/arent included in competing interpretations of the topic and why thats good/bad.
- any model of debate that only allows one or two affs to exist on a topic is a bad one. im most compelled by topic literature, and semantics is generally uncompelling to me. jurisdictional claims dont make any sense - i can do what i want with my ballot. i dont flow them.
--- (LD) re: nebel: i do not understand the upward entailment test and also greatly dislike cards written by debate coaches. if nebel is your a-strat you should strike me because i will almost always vote for the interpretation that allows for more than one aff to be read on a topic.
- will not vote on an rvi to topicality literally ever. dont bother.
[[ ]] Theory:
- once again vacuousness makes me frustrated. interpretations with no justifiable abuse story will make me frustrated which is definitely bad for you. if there is no provable in-round abuse my threshold will go way down.
- i often find that these debates get too technical and a lot of the abuse story ends up getting lost in the debate. i think having a top level explanation of the abuse story will help to clarify a lot of these issues that come up.
- i will evaluate every part of the debate. i do not flow evaluate after x speech for any layer of the debate. both sides get to make arguments in every speech.
- i flow rvis but i will not vote on an rvi unless it's straight conceded.
- re: disclosure. you should disclose. if i have to judge a disclosure debate i will be sad. new affs are definitely good. being from a small school is not a reason to not disclose on the wiki, but not knowing the wiki exists probably is.
--- interpretations like round reports, cites, etc. fall into the category of vacuousness and i am sympathetic to reasonability in these debates.
[[ ]] Phil (ld):
- i like phil (they're a nice person) when it does not include blippy arguments that are leveraged to avoid clash.
- im dumber than i thought. explain phil to me like im a 5 year old. im not hostile to phil i'm just stupid. when your arguments arent explained my decision gets worse and someone is unsatisfied.
- to restate the top of the paradigm: i like clash and i like robust and nuanced debate. thusly, i think these debates are better when there is good comparison between syllogisms and both sides give good explanations for what their framework entails and what is and isnt permissible under their framework. conversely, these debates are way worse when they spam independent justifications and extend concessions with 0 explanation as to what the argument means and why its capable to justify an entire moral theory on its own.
- theres a lot of arguments in these debates that i think do not make sense (emod, induction fails, tjfs, etc.) and the threshold to respond to these will almost always be low.
- extinction outweighs is compelling to me because i dont think there is a single framework that is read in debate that cares 0 about extinction. i think all of them say it's bad with different justifications.
[[ ]] Tricks:
- recycled arguments are bad. generic arguments that get read on every topic are bad. tricks, generally, involve both of these things with little to no innovation. consider this when preffing me.
- i do not have a hardline stance on these arguments, but i do think you should pref other people instead of me if this is your a-strat. for some reason people think tricky arguments are an acceptable response to affs about oppression. they arent. i will give you an L0 if you try to go for gsp, zenos, skep, or any of these arguments against affs that discuss oppression in a meaningful way.
- i figured out a while ago that indexicals means that i can decide under my index that you lost the debate and should get 25 speaks. i will consider this when evaluating your 2ar.
- no ethos no ballot. if i dont verbally laugh, i can and will vote you down just because you're boring to me.
[[ ]] Cheating (in the officially written rules sense):
- i used to have a bit here about evidence ethics being annoying but there was a round with actual tangible abuse where a violation occurred and someone was deterred from mentioning it when it mattered. i think evidence ethics are bad when there is no competitive advantage gained from the violation (ie a broken link to evidence that does actually exist) and you're staking the round on it because you want a free win/it's a round you think you wont win otherwise. i still prefer rehighlighting and debating the round out to staking rounds on ev ethics, but i am still happy to vote on a violation when its egregious and obvious that an advantage was gained from the violation.
- clipping loses you the debate with 0 speaks. no arguments have to be made for me to vote you down for it, if i catch you its sufficient.
[[ ]] Random Musings (these are still important imo):
- (ld) independent voters are usually not independent and i will usually just evaluate them as a turn to whatever they're read on. maybe if you spend 30 seconds-a minute on it in the speech it's introduced in and read a card i can be convinced, but otherwise dont bother.
- inserted rehighlightings are fine if its from a portion that was actually read. different parts of the same article (paragraphs later) should be read.
- speaks info is here: they are determined by strategy, clarity, ethos, and organization. i think speaks are stupid. i think preffing judges based on how they give speaks is even more stupid. and i think its even MORE stupid that minority debaters get less speaks on average. to compensate, gender minorities and debaters of color will have speaks adjusted upwards. this is a) to check any internal bias i may unknowingly have and b) because it would make me sad for you to get screwed by someone else in the pool. i try my hardest not to inflate speaks so if ur speaks from me are lower than from others its nothing personal.
--- i used to disclose speaks. i dont anymore unless theyre very good (think 29.5+ for both debaters)
--- (stolen from patrick) up to +.3 speaks if u show me music and i like it. this is 2 easy when i link my spotify, so for reference my favorite albums of all time r the lonesome crowded west by modest mouse and 1000 gecs by 100 gecs
--- bringing me a sugar-free monster = +.5 speaks.
--- sending docs on anything other than a word doc is -.1 speak
- i listen to cross. i dont flow it because im lazy but if you're blatantly lying ill probably pick up on it.
- i usually will read evidence for fun, but most of the time this wont really affect my decision unless someone calls for me to read it. if you’re blatantly lying, wrong about what your evidence says, or making grandiose claims your evidence never makes, the threshold for responses will go down. calling out bad evidence when you see it and asking me to read it is good, and will get you better speaks if its done meaningfully.
- i vote neg a lot because i often find that 2ar spin is too new to have possibly been predictable for a reasonable 2n. 2ars that explain and implicate out arguments that were already somewhat explained in the 1ar are the best imo..
- i will be annoyed if ur coach comes to post-round me based on your interpretation of what happened in the round. im all for post-rounding and i think it makes ppl better at judging, but if they dont know the content of the round, and only your interpretation of what happened, it will probably just get frustrating and wont be very productive. feel free to ask me whatever questions you have after the round though.
- i am annoyed by strategies that consist of 7+ offs since i find they are often poorly developed. i would prefer to hear a few nuanced and well developed positions as opposed to spammy arguments that arent developed and dont say anything. policymaking strats can maybe make it happen since disads and counterplans are usually pretty short, but other than that maybe dont try it.
- please learn to flow. there is no clarification time - if u want to ask what is and isnt read use cross for it but it gets annoying when i have to listen to 2 minutes of "was x read" and you will probably lose speaks.