Yoyo Lei Paradigm

Last changed 17 October 2021 7:16 AM CDT

email: yoyolei6@gmail.com

---------ABOUT ME---------

- always add me to email chain

- she/her

- i have ld and policy experience

- asian american (i don't believe it affects the way i judge? but i do like identity ks)

- ways to make me like you are in bold :)

- if you guess my favorite conan gray song i will give you 30 speaks :P



1-kritiks (except high theory-pref at a 2)


4/strike- phil

4- tricks

=don't be problematic, send me speech docs, and extend warrants, everything else is up for grabs=


---------GENERAL INFO---------


i'm a flow judge, send docs if you want me to have all the args down. well im pretty flow, like i won't vote for like five arguments, but those are explained later in the paradigm. i try to be the least dogmatic as possible, but im human soooo. i'm like marginally more truth over tech. ill disclose speaks if you ask. all dropped arguments are true, idc what they are. i will vote for spark, warming false, and literally anything under the sun. don't card dump, im going to wonder why you just wasted like 3 minutes of my life. disclose 30 minutes before round, i usually don't buy disclosure but i will if you don't follow this norm. if i hear anything problematic (ie racism, sexism, queerphobia etc), i will stop the round and immediately drop you and report you to tab. ill start you at 27.5 speaks and move up from there, speaks honestly vary by how much i like you, rather than how well you argued lmao. i wanna be the best judge for yall as possible so just lmk any accomadations you need before round.

general defaults:

rvi>no rvi, reasonability>competing interps, drop the arg>drop the debater, comparative worlds>tt, util if fw is wash, real world impacts> extinction, education>fairness, neg gets presumption, aff gets permissibility


i will judge you like a parent judge, you need to be able to explain the basics of debate before moving on from being a novice. also I have decided to do absolutely no work for novices, if you dont weigh im going to vote neg on presumption. please don't he said she said to me, i am literally watching the round that you are in (this is one of my biggest pet peeves, -1 speaks). if you run a case that someone else wrote, it is pretty obvious and be prepared for me to say something, you should be writing your own case. if you run a case that you don't understand (larp, ks, etc) as a novice and I judge you, the RFD is going to be extensive and harsh. DO NOT RUN ANYTHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND (i hate when people give their novices cases and let them drown, i will 1. talk to your varsity and 2. give you a very mean rfd). i'll want the speech docs (email it to me, give me a paper copy, whatever). also speaks are important so read bold :) also im not mean for no reason, just trying to make you better at debate. make debate fun for yourself and make friends, it allows for the debate community to grow and we both want that. ((read post round etiquette at the bottom))


i'm pretty good with speed, don't go 5000 wpm or else im not going to be able to flow it, slow down for tags and cites (if i cannot hear the card, i will not flow it). i will say slow/clear 3 times, after that imma just flow whatever i hear, and im not going to extend it if i dont have it on my flow. if you are going to spread, send speech docs. please please please include analytics in your speech doc (+.5 speaks if you do). probably just stand up, if you don't, i dont care. be aggressive, dont be rude. don't talk over other people in CX, if someone says [thats fine] STOP TALKING. (talking over one of your fellow debaters will drop your speaks infront of me -.5 speak for every violation, i think its incredibly rude). i literally cannot stress this more, I HATE WHEN PEOPLE DO THIS IN AND OUT OF ROUND. i will usually look really offended when you do it the first couple of times (~3), after that i will stop cx and tell you to be better/more nice :( don't make me do that. i will hold the line for you. also if there isn't an extension of the aff, i will not extend it for you and i will most likely vote neg on presumption (i have a very high threshold for extensions, ie don't just say xt this one card and then move on).

---------FRAMEWORK (LD)---------

i usually evaluate a plan first and its impacts, default to util. i honestly don't care about the value, so you might as well collapse to a single standard. you get access to advantages even if you lose fw. please please please, do not run some wack criterion and expect me to vote for it without proper explanation. if i don't get a good explanation out of your second speech (aff or neg), i will just default to util. the case debate is more important than fw imo. ask before round, because im probably not too familiar with your framework


i'm most familiar with cap, setcol, puar, preciado, bataille, fem ir, security, and baudrillard (i'm ok for high theory/pomo, email me for more specs). DON'T RUN PSYCHO, i will literally hack against you (unless you read it and a five year old would understand it), this is your one and only warning and you're gonna be super mad that i dropped you (most likely lmao). ideologically i believe psychoanalysis is wrong, but i have read some of the lit, so don't be afraid to read pess positions. i'm pretty open minded for a lot of ks, as long as theyre not objectively false then ill vote for them. if they are objectively false, i do have a lower threshold for response. if you somehow run preciado right (+2 speaks). i really don't buy link of omission, but its whatever, i prefer more specific links. prefiat usually comes first (there is a distinction between pre and post fiat). stock ks don't get pre fiat and nothing is going to change that. if you are running it on the neg, have a solid warrant for the link and a solid alt. do NOT run an identity k if you don't identify with that particular identity, the threshold for response is really low. email me for k specs

---------K AFFS---------

i run/ran k affs, pretty good for judging it. if you run it just because i (basically) hack for k affs, i will be incredibly mad. i hate people who run k affs just to win rounds. they should be somewhat in the direction of the topic, if not then make them entirely about how debate is bad. tfw is fine, make case turns (i don't actually hack for k affs :). implicate why x comes first because i'm not going to do that for you. also tfw+cap is so boring, be creative, run pomo, run psycho (even though I hate it), run literally anything else. if theyre putting that much effort into providing a different view point of debate, you might as well out perform them, because I weigh k affs and ks on the same level, so take that how you would like.


please have a really convincing interpretation because if i have to evaluate a dumb theory shell i will cry and not like you very much. extend standards, interpretation, and voters. also i really dont want to watch a round with forty seven hours of theory (don't make me judge it). i also have a high tolerance for abuse in round (I don't think a lot of things are actually abuse lmao). meeting disclosure has a very low threshold (just disclose before round i don't care about anything beyond that), nebel is dumb but i'll buy it, i will buy afc and tjf but I won't be happy about it, ask about other spec shells. tbh if you wanna run it as a time suck, run it as a time suck

---------PHIL ---------

treat me like a five year old, i know next to nothing about phil. i didn't debate it in policy and i didn't debate it in ld either. i default to util if i dont understand it : ) i also do not want to judge a phil round. (strike me if you want a good phil judge)

---------LARP ---------

i love soft left positions, extinction is fine, but i kinda want real world impacts :( ive heard the same 3 link chains for the entire time that ive been in debate and im bored. if you can find a way around extinction impacts then i will love you. i ran exclusively structural violence in ld and soft left in policy. it will take a lot less for someone to say the link chain is shady and don't buy it if you run extinction. make your aff interesting and ill give you higher speaks. im pretty much good w any larp aff, theyre pretty familiar. make sure you have a solvency mech and that your solvency actually solves case, because time and time again i see affs that dont solve for their impacts. also, make sure that your aff is inherent, it seems to be a problem in ld where debaters often ignore the fact that the plan will probably pass/is passing in the squo. i will judge kick if you ask. ask for specs.


will evaluate the same as an aff plan if aff runs larp. neg does not get fiat. need a specific cp, if it's non competitive, good luck trying to win on that. add planks if you want to, but there's a limit before it's abusive (id say ~3 or 4). perms and no solvency are really convincing. use as many perms as you would like, but make them reasonable (justify them). condo is fine as long as you don't run more than 2-3 condo positions.


should have an impact separate from the aff, don't double turn yourself from impact turns, link into the aff with a specific link (+.3 speaks for good links). don't forget uniqueness. i vote on low risk=no risk. if it sounds inprobable to me, then theres a very low threshold for response (be intuitive).


don't make it excessively long, its a pain to sift through and I don't want to read or listen to a whole paragraph of theory preempts. honestly be reasonable, if it takes longer than like a minute and a half to read, im not going to flow it all. if you threw in tricks or interps, YOU BETTER EXTEND IT CLEARLY (uv acts does almost nothing for me unless its warranted and extended)


{{{{make sure you bold/highlight your trix, im a super bad minesweeper and im not going to catch hidden triggers}}}

i know the very basics of tricks, they don't make much sense to me, so probably caution yourself when running it. paradoxes are dumb and i won't vote for them (im supposed to be tab not stupid jkjk), skep is fine, indexicals are okay, truth testing is meh (easy to convince me otherwise), default to comparative worlds, logcon is fine, affirming negates is dumb, im going to evaluate the whole round not after x speech bc the debater says so, spec more preround (I probably know most bc a couple of my friends run trix). i also believe its quite ableist to run a bunch of theory blips, so just respond w a shell and i'll probably buy it.

---------POST ROUND ETIQUETTE---------

throw questions my way, im not always right (hehe jk im a god and always know). post round me please, i think 1] its funny 2] its educational for you to understand what happened to make you drop the ballot 3] anger is justified if you competed to the best of your ability. however, remember no amount of post rounding will change the ballot. post rounding is okay for you to do as long as it stays in round and it doesn't devolve into personal insults (ie don't call me anything rude). if you want to outside of round, know that everyone knows everyone, it is gonna get back to me :)

also before post rounding me tell me what to add to my paradigm cause its become my hobby to change it every week

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Lincoln Douglas Septober Tournament HS 2021-08-27 LD1 R2 102 105 Neg
Lincoln Douglas Septober Tournament 2021-08-27 LD1 R1 101 102 Neg
The 2nd Annual Quarantine Classic HS 2021-07-22 LD Semis Speak in power KD Harrison AC Neg Neg 3-0
The 2nd Annual Quarantine Classic HS 2021-07-22 LD R3 Harrison AC Kyra Terez Independent Entry KT Aff
The 2nd Annual Quarantine Classic HS 2021-07-22 LD R1 Zoro's Wayfinding RK Speak in power KD Neg