Ben Shahar Paradigm

Last changed 8/12 11:25A PDT

TL;DR

My prounouns are they/them.

The most important thing is to debate how you want to debate, have fun, and hopefully learn. Everything below are my preferences about debate; except when I explicitly say, they only matter absent arguments to the contrary.

If you have any questions before the round, message me on facebook or email me (bshahar@rice.edu); facebook is preferable. If you have any accessibility issue you want to communicate to me, please do and I will do whatever possible to ensure the round is accessible.

Debate is a game structured by wins and losses, but it’s an educational game with important implications on the subject formation of participants.

To win my ballot: do good weighing, signpost, call out shady ev and missing internal links, and don’t be violent. I will try to find the easiest path to the ballot; tell me what that is.

If you’re here specifically for PF, I suggest skipping everything from the CP section until the PF-specific section.

About Me

I debated at Nueva for four years of PF and two of parli. I like to pretend I’m OK. I've gone for everything from the states CP to intrinsic perms to Edelman to warming good. I appreciate flexibility in my judges more than anything else, so that's what I'll try to do. Specifically, I tend to value processes (iterative research, argumentative clash, switching sides, etc) over specific content products (learning about the state/economics/capitalism/whatever), and therefore the most important things in this paradigm are higher-order questions about how I like rounds to happen, rather than what arguments I want in rounds.

Tech vs. Truth

I will intervene on speech times, the fact that I give at most one win, and against arguments which I subjectively judge to be violent -- if you have to ask, don't make the argument. Deny any of these, but especially the third, and you lose with a max of 25s. Any other argument is tech over truth as much as my biases allow. There is a minimum threshold of warranting required for a claim to become an argument.

Presentation

Give content warnings when applicable. Fast debate is great as long as it isn't used to exclude. I will intervene if you are repeatedly cleared and don't slow down. Anything else: I don't care. Stand up, sit down, lie down, wear formal clothing, wear no shoes. You do you.

Speaks

I will try to average a 28.5. You get speaks for strategic decisions, technical competence, evidence quality, and being good for debate. You lose them for the inverse as well as violence or cheating (clipping, not disclosing, egregious powertagging, lying in CX, etc).

Post-round

I will disclose and give an RFD. If you don't agree, feel free to argue, just keep it respectful. Obviously I can’t change my decision but this forces me to think deeply about it and helps all of us learn. I'll continue these conversations as long as necessary, even post-tournament over facebook, unless I feel they're going in circles.

Evidence

Evidence is important but not the be-all-end-all: good cards beat good analytics but good analytics beat bad cards. Please call out bad cards; I will not read evidence unless asked to do so or have no other way to resolve the debate.

Weighing

Weighing requires comparison of internal link stories, not just impacts. I enjoy leveraging defense as a reason their offense is low probability. I tend to be sympathetic to probability/structural violence first. I like debates where weighing starts as early as possible. I like strategic meta-weighing or other tricky sequencing. I default to epistemic modesty, meaning the weight of each piece of offense is the risk of their truth-value contingent on the risk they outweigh.

Case

I love good case negs. I will give you 30s if the 1NC order is just case (assuming you don't do anything terrible, obviously). Impact turns are hella strategic especially with advantage CPs.

DA

No risk is likely not a thing unless terminal defense is straight conceded. I generally think the link debate is more important than the uniqueness debate but can be persuaded otherwise.

CP

I think multiple (but not infinite) condo and most CPs which use the plan timeframe and actor (or another topical actor -- think SCOTUS CP on USfg topics), including consult, condition, and PICs, are legitimate. I think most CPs which change either of those (agent, delay) are illegitimate.

I very much enjoy nuanced solvency deficit debates; a corollary is that I dislike vague CPs that shift in the back half. I also enjoy impact turned net benefits.

K

Don't commodify your argument. Know the lit base.

I don’t have a preference for sequencing Ks vs. theory. I’m down for all the tricks: floating PIKs, reject/endorse/vague alts (or no alt at all), ethical conditionality/perfcons, etc. are all fine (absent theory claims to the contrary) if you win the argument. I like link turns/smart perms better than impact turns, but a good impact debate can be fun.

K Aff

I default to thinking my ballot decides what form of the game best facilitates the subject formation of participants -- whether that's a procedurally fair game about hypothetical implementation of topical action or an educational game about developing survival strategies is up to you.

I like neg strategies which are contextualized to the aff. Clever counter-advocacies are really fun and can magnify the no weighing mech args on T. I don’t want to vote for a counterinterp that justifies affs defending truisms, but I will if necessary. I suspect good TVAs are the closest thing to a silver bullet there is.

Theory

Competing interps does not require an explicit interp. Reasonability requires a brightline. I prefer standards-level strength of link weighing to generic fairness vs education debates. I default to drop the argument.

I am very down for frivolous theory. However, I am more sympathetic to RVIs (and similar tricky checks on theory: metatheory, OCIs, etc) than most judges. I won’t hack for them, but I think it’s certainly a debate.

T

I default to T before theory. I think T is drop the debater. I generally like a case list; this can obviously be in the block.

Phil

Sure. Not my favorite but I see its utility and I’m down to evaluate it. I suspect it’s under-utilized outside of LD, and I’m very interested in its interactions with theory and the K.

Tricks

Tricks are very fun when well done, but do not make me judge a bad tricks debate without framing as to why your argument affirms/negates. I default to presuming negative even if the block goes for an advocacy, but good tricks debaters will make arguments in both directions.

Trichot

Policy >>> Value > Fact. I will vote for plans on fact/value reses and tend to prefer these debates.

PF-specific:

Speech Obligations

Theoretically justify any changes to this and I'm cool.

Anything in final focuses should be in summaries, except that if second rebuttal doesn't cover their own case first summary doesn't have to either, including extending turns. To be clear, yes, this means first final focus can extend a turn from first rebuttal that wasn’t in summary, as long as it wasn’t answered in second rebuttal.

New offense in rebuttal (either, but especially second) is abusive unless it link or internal link turns their case (without external impacts), relies on a link argument made in their case (as do impact turns), or answers to your case are responsive to it.

PF CX is fake. I don't flow it.

Progressive

I love progressive debate. Go fast, read Ks, theory, plans, whatever you can theoretically justify; 30s if it's done well. Just don't do so at the cost of accessibility, and don't do it if you're bad at it just because you saw this paradigm. If your opponents aren't familiar with something, you don't need to stop, just slow down and give them a lay explanation in CX/as an underview.

Disclosure

I was one of the first people to disclose on the PF wiki. I have a very low threshold for voting on disclosure theory; just make sure you ask them in front of me or screenshot a read receipt so you have a violation. If you let me know that you disclose at some point before my decision; you get an extra speak.

TL;DR for PFers @ SFSU

I'm tech over truth. Be progressive, fast, whatever. I don't care about presentation. Don't misconstrue evidence or perpetuate structural violence. Second rebuttal has to cover turns; first summary has to cover anything that second rebuttal frontlined. Please, please, please do impact calc and warrant-level clash.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Western JV Novice National Championship 3/9/2019 JPF Finals Harker NS Dougherty Valley CP Neg Neg on a 3-2
Western JV Novice National Championship 3/9/2019 JPF Semis Golden State ZC Dougherty Valley CP Neg Neg on a 3-0
Western JV Novice National Championship 3/9/2019 JPF Quarte Harker NS College Prep BB Aff Aff on a 3-0
Western JV Novice National Championship 3/9/2019 JPF Quarte 49 North LW Golden State ZC Neg Neg on a 2-1
Western JV Novice National Championship 3/9/2019 JPF Octos Harker NS Dougherty Valley SW Aff Aff on a 2-1
Western JV Novice National Championship 3/9/2019 JPF Octos College Prep BB 49 North CC Aff Aff on a 3-0
Western JV Novice National Championship 3/9/2019 JPF R5 Harker NS Golden State ZC Aff
Nueva Parli Invitational 1/13/2019 JPAR R4 Crystal Springs Uplands SL Valley Christian KG Neg
Nueva Parli Invitational 1/13/2019 JPAR R1 El Cerrito RM Valley Christian TH Aff
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitatonal 12/14/2018 PFN Final Golden State GY Evergreen Valley SK Aff Aff on a 2-1
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitatonal 12/14/2018 PFN Semi Stratagem Learning YZ Evergreen Valley SK Neg Neg on a 3-0
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitatonal 12/14/2018 PARN Quar Granite Bay PB Claremont RW Neg Aff on a 2-1
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitatonal 12/14/2018 PARN Octo Menlo-Atherton HK Irvington MS Neg Aff on a 2-1
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitatonal 12/14/2018 PFN Octo Stratagem Learning YZ BASIS Fremont WP Aff Aff on a 3-0
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitatonal 12/14/2018 PFN Doub Golden State SP Stratton Oakmont CR Aff
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitatonal 12/14/2018 PFN R4 Claremont WM Golden State ZG Neg
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitatonal 12/14/2018 PFN R4 Stratagem Learning VP Golden State MK Aff
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitatonal 12/14/2018 PFN R3 Evergreen Valley SK Monte Vista KS Aff
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitatonal 12/14/2018 PFN R3 Stratagem Learning CL BASIS Fremont WP Aff
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitatonal 12/14/2018 PFN R2 Joaquin Miller MA Evergreen Valley SS Aff
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitatonal 12/14/2018 PFN R2 Debatable SV Golden State BI Neg
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 PF N Quar Monta Vista BW Foothill DD Aff Neg on a 2-1
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 PF N Octo Leland YF Monta Vista RV Aff Aff on a 3-0
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 PF N Octo Champion CJ Foothill DD Neg Neg on a 3-0
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 PF N Doub Young Genius, Bay Area XM Bishop O'Dowd BB Neg Neg on a 3-0
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 PF N Doub Champion CJ Golden State GD Aff Aff on a 2-1
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 PF N R4 Modern Rhetoric LG Harker LG Neg
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 PF N R4 Chaboya GR Mountain View HT Neg
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 PF N R2 Mission San Jose TZ Golden State CW Neg
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 PF N R2 Nova 42 LG Harker NL Aff
Western JV and Novice National Championship 3/10/2018 NPF Quarte Mission San Jose ZZ Golden State CP Aff Aff on a 3-0
Western JV and Novice National Championship 3/10/2018 NPF Octos Dougherty Valley Bridge PC Mission San Jose TS Aff Aff on a 2-1
Western JV and Novice National Championship 3/10/2018 NPF Double Dougherty Valley Bridge PC Harker GoMo Aff Aff on a 2-1
Western JV and Novice National Championship 3/10/2018 NPF Double Joaquin Miller KhSh Dougherty Valley Bridge NM Neg Neg on a 3-0
Western JV and Novice National Championship 3/10/2018 NPF R4 Damien BI Harker SX Aff
Western JV and Novice National Championship 3/10/2018 NPF R2 Bishop O'Dowd BW Joaquin Miller KS Aff
Nueva Parli Invitational 2/24/2018 JPAR R3 Bishop O'Dowd ML Los Altos KT Neg
Nueva Parli Invitational 2/24/2018 JPAR R2 Berkeley SW Mills ZL Aff
Nueva Parli Invitational 2/24/2018 JPAR R1 Berkeley KW Quarry Lane HN Aff