Kyle Bystrom Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 1:48A EDT

Hi everyboday! I'll be judging CPS this weekend, and it'll be great to re-visit the debate community! I haven't made any real updates since I judged JV at Berkeley this February, but nothing has changed in particular. Since I'm judging varsity this time, I would like to point out that some of you are probably much more advanced debaters than I was (I only did a few circuit tournaments and never broke to elims). The point I want to make is that my job as a judge is to do everything I can to make a logical decision based on the conventions of debate, and your job as a debater is to respect my judgment and understand that it is final and well-intentioned if imperfect. Long story short, if you're consistently getting winning records, I might not keep up well with your style, so don't pref me high; if you're still developing skills as a circuit debater, I'm probably a fine judge for you. See below for details, and best of luck!

General Debate Experience/Philosophy: I did LD for four years and was never particularly good at it, but I have experience with both circuit and lay styles and consider myself fairly competent at evaluating flows. Expect the round to be judged primarily in the style of a circuit round (i.e. by the flow, little intervention), except for a couple things.

1) I've listened to speed, but I'm terrible at understanding it, and while I feel bad about that, if you speak at 400 wpm and I don't understand you, I'm not going to call your cards to read them because that's unfair to your opponent and defeats the purpose of delivering speeches. This also means that I will not read along with cases from my computer. I'll do my best to understand, and say "Clear" if you aren't, but if I don't understand, it's not on my flow.

2) If you want to make a super semantic a priori win or something of the sort, I'll of course be willing to vote on it, but I have pretty high standards for those arguments, and while I try to be unbiased, I might tend to accept weak responses to a hasty, sneakily hidden a priori argument at the top of your AC or something of the sort.

Concessions: I'm not totally sure whether this is the debate norm or not, but I don't believe you can put an a priori in your AC without explaining the impact thoroughly, extend it in the 1AR and say your opponent conceded the a priori and therefore can only respond to the weighing you do in the 1AR rather than the a priori itself. If something has no clear impact, it is not a full argument. E.g. if you have a definition that makes you win a priori but don't mention that it's an a priori win until the 1AR, your opponent should be able to respond to the definition itself in the NR. That might be quirky, but it's probably my only significantly unusual debate paradigm and it makes sense.

Extensions: An extension tells me what you're extending and why it's important. You don't need to read the whole contention again. Your summary of the warrant can even be slim or nonexistent UNLESS your opponent responded to part of your warrant, in which case you need to tell me why the warrant still stands/which part your opponent didn't respond too.

Plans: LD is a debate of values. It is NOT policy. You are welcome to run a plan, but it must either satisfy the entirety of the resolution (prove it generally true) or contain a good argument that it shouldn't have to.

Theory: Similar to a prioris and stuff. Definitely acceptable, but I tend to get a tad biased against stupid theory.

Kritiks: I don't have much experience with them and might not fully understand the structure, but I can and will still consider and evaluate them equally (unless, once again, they are super semantic or irrelevant to the topic, e.g. the word ___ isn't feminist enough so my opponent loses, in which case it better be very well argued and/or very poorly responded too).

Getting high speaks: Speak clearly, have well constructed arguments (strong philosophy is a plus, frivolous semantics are not but won't ding you if they're well written), sign post really really well, treat your opponent like the intelligent person he/she/ze/etc is, weigh your impacts, and provide a story for why you're winning. Some of these will obviously also help you win.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/18/2017 JVLD R6 Flintridge Preparatory JD Elite of Irvine RG Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/18/2017 JVLD R6 Dougherty Valley SMa Monte Vista AH Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/18/2017 JVLD R5 Cypress Bay NB Elite of Irvine PB Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/18/2017 JVLD R5 Miller Middle AD Dougherty Valley JL Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/18/2017 JVLD R4 Cypress Bay JG Cupertino GN Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/18/2017 JVLD R4 Nova 42 NS Northland Christian MP Neg
College Prep LD Invitational 12/17/2016 NLD Final Brentwood DW Albany RR Aff Aff on a 2-1
College Prep LD Invitational 12/17/2016 NLD Semifi Monte Vista EY Albany RR Neg Neg on a 2-1
College Prep LD Invitational 12/17/2016 NLD Quarte Brentwood DW Cupertino OD Aff Aff on a 3-0
College Prep LD Invitational 12/17/2016 NLD Partia Cupertino OD Lynbrook SS Aff Aff on a 3-0
College Prep LD Invitational 12/17/2016 NLD R3 Dougherty Valley ABa Harvard-Westlake AL Aff
College Prep LD Invitational 12/17/2016 NLD R3 Pinewood SB Mt Eden NK Aff
College Prep LD Invitational 12/17/2016 OLD R1 Interlake MW La Reina AC Aff
Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament 2/13/2016 JVLD R6 Cypress Bay VR Kudos PB Neg
Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament 2/13/2016 JVLD R6 Elite of Irvine MJ FSHA (Flintridge) DG Aff
Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament 2/13/2016 JVLD R5 Oakwood KA El Cerrito MT Aff
Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament 2/13/2016 JVLD R5 James Logan AN Dougherty Valley KDu Aff
Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament 2/13/2016 JVLD R4 Northland Christian MB Presentation NA Neg
Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament 2/13/2016 JVLD R4 Cherry Creek FE Mira Loma BL Neg
Voices Foundation Invitational 10/10/2014 NLD Semis Lynbrook Debate YZ Peninsula MG Aff Aff on a 2-1
Voices Foundation Invitational 10/10/2014 NLD Quarte Harvard-Westlake MG Lynbrook Debate YZ Neg Neg on a 2-1
Voices Foundation Invitational 10/10/2014 NLD R6 Brooks RR Marquette University HL Aff
Voices Foundation Invitational 10/10/2014 NLD R6 Peninsula MG Mission San Jose EH Aff