Clare Mosko ParadigmLast changed 2/12 1:33P PDT
My Background: I am a freshman at UC Davis double majoring in biology and political science. I competed primarily on the LD circuit (national and local) but also did some parli, impromptu, and IX.) I triple qualified to state my senior year. I debated all 4 years at La Costa Canyon High School (2012-15) but also had to compete independently under Leucadia Independent. I now compete in NPDA (parli), and also Model UN at Davis. Feel free to clarify any questions before the round, or email me at email@example.com.
Evaluation of rounds: I will first evaluate wins the framework debate, then followed by who links their offense best back to the framework.
Speed: Slow down for tags and authors. You can spread, and I can flow speed. However, I haven’t competed or judged that recently so I don’t entirely trust my own ability to flow speed perfectly. If you do speed, please do so proportionally to your clarity. I will yell clear and/or slow. This should not impact speaker points drastically if this happens a couple times considering I don’t trust my own ability to flow well. If this is excessive or a blatant issue, I will let you know. If this helps, I was always medium to fast (not necessarily the fastest) but always clear.
Theory/T: Feel free to engage in theoretical debate. Please don’t be a jerk though. I do appreciate it if one does use theory strategically, they provide a reasonable abuse story. I prefer if you frame it like a shell (a, b, c, d…). I must explicitly hear a warrant for “drop the debater” if you want me to vote that way. I default to competing interpretations.
Policy Arguments: I understand these pretty well. When considering impacts, please try and have a clear link chain with warrants.
Kritiks: I never explicitly ran K’s. That said, if you do run a K, I do not understand a lot of K lit. Of course, I’ve hit the basics. Please explain a K to me. Use cross-x wisely here. If I don’t understand the argument, I will likely buy your opponent’s refutation. That said, I will vote on a K if well executed. Also, when running a K, do not drop your opponent’s case. I will not cross apply your K arguments to your opponents framework. Try to engage your opponent's case. This is often where I would find a way to beat a K. I don’t like it when debaters get handed a K and read it because they think it’s a definite win. It’s not, and I expect debaters to be able to beat a poorly run K.
Speaker points: Don’t make me yell clear/slow a lot, or be disrespectful in round. I believe word economy and fluidity also factor into getting high speaker points. Again, please slow down for tags and authors. If you don't, and I can't flow these well, this is your loss and your speaker points should reflect that.
Things I dislike: most skep, performance cases, weird K’s, voting on presumption, lying in cross-x, anyone who cites CHSSA rules as a reason for me to drop the opponent.
Things I like: good weighing, clear extensions, strategic use of cross-x, a solid framework, sticking to an off-time road map. Try to not use some stock case you use at every tournament. I like relevant, topical debate.
That said, I love LD, and I look forward to being surrounded by it once again. I look forward to judging a good round! :)