Kevin Klyman Paradigm

Last changed 11/11 1:50P EDT

PARLI PARADIGM FOR NPDI 2016:

I have judged high school parli before but sparingly. I do not understand how the event is conventionally judged or interpreted. I compete for Berkeley's APDA team and I did Public Forum debate in high school. I am competent at flowing although I cannot flow policy speed or the speed of the fastest circuit LD; if you ask me to do so I will say "clear" if you go too quickly, but without prompting I will remain silent.

I am open to all kinds of arguments; to me, an argument is a claim and a warrant (i.e. a reason why the claim is true). I default to an offense-defense paradigm, so if you want me to evaluate the round in a way other than that tell me to do so and warrant why I should do so. If the round is evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm it is of paramount importance that you weigh your arguments and warrant why they are more significant than your opponents' impacts, otherwise I will be deciding without a good justification for either side. I am unfamiliar with Ks in parli but I am open to them (if you explain them well) and I am predisposed to enjoy arguments that deploy an unconventional strategy.

I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. Examples include "women like it rough," "there are no racist laws since the Civil Rights Act," "illegal immigrants do not deserve constitutional protections" and the like. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space." Usually I'll try to do that work on my own, but a reminder never hurts.

If you have any more questions feel free to ask.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM:

TLDR: I am a flow judge who will try to give helpful feedback.

How I Make My Decision

I will vote largely based on the final two speeches. I prefer to only vote on arguments whose warrant and impact are in both the summary and the final focus. However, there are two exceptions to this rule. First, both teams may extend defensive responses from the rebuttal to the final focus, however, I greatly prefer them to be in the summary and I am more likely to feel that they are new if they are extended from second rebuttal to second final focus. Second, the first final focus can make some new responses to new arguments made in the second summary but be reasonable about it.

Weigh as much as possible. I flow weighing arguments, and you can and should reference them as cleanly extended weighing analysis if your opponents do not respond to weighing in rebuttal or summary. Try to beyond using weighing buzz words such as magnitude/probability/timeframe and instead really tell me why the resolution is still true or false even if your opponents win all of their arguments.

Argumentation

I try and fail to come into each round as a blank slate, meaning that I try to disregard my biases.

I am in favor of unconventional argumentation. As a debater I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction. I am happy to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. However, my experience with evaluating these kinds of arguments is limited, so they must be articulated and weighed clearly.

I am probably comfortable with most speeds that will be reached in a Public Forum round, but if you are going too fast I will try to let you know. However, if you go slower I am on balance more likely to vote for you. Jargon is good as it usually helps me understand what kind of argument are making, but please try to sound like a human rather than a jargon machine. If it stops being helpful my expression will let you know.

I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. Examples include "women like it rough," "there are no racist laws since the Civil Rights Act," "illegal immigrants do not deserve constitutional protections" and the like. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space." Usually I'll try to do that work on my own, but a reminder never hurts.

Evidence

Evidence ethics in Public Forum are awful. If your opponents are lying about evidence tell me, and they will lose because of it.

During the round evidence should be exchanged quickly and often. Evidence will be exchanged off of prep time, but the team reading the evidence will need to take prep to do so unless they read it during a speech or crossfire. If a team does not have a piece of evidence available I will disregard it. I will call for evidence after the round in four scenarios.

First, if during the round a debater tells me to look at specific evidence I will ask to see it. If the evidence is misrepresented I will reevaluate the argument that the evidence relates to as though it had never been read, which likely means that I will no longer be comfortable voting on that argument.

Second, if you cite a piece of evidence that I have read and it is blatantly misrepresented I'll want to see it to see who has the correct interpretation. For example, if a debater reports the wrong date for an event for which I know the correct date, provided that the date matters for the argument and the argument is made a voting issue, I'll need to see the source. In this case, do not be tempted to falsify the date on the evidence, I will google it to make sure that what you gives me matches the actual evidence.

Third, I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's obviously false. For instance, I might want to read evidence that states that during the round global nuclear war broke out and everyone outside of the room is dead.

Fourth, if there is a "tie" I will ask for evidence from both teams. (This occurs when neither team weighs any of their arguments, extends clean offense, or has an obviously bigger impact.) If either team has misrepresented evidence pertaining to their key arguments I will vote against them. If each team has a similar quality of evidence I will intervene in the best way I can.

Although this is thorough it does not mean that I often call for evidence; on the contrary, I set strict guidelines so that I do not call for evidence when it is unreasonable to do so, reducing the probability that I intervene. 

Speaker Points

I will reward debaters for clarity, kindness, humor, tech skill, strategy, teamwork, persuasion, topic knowledge, and genius. Here is my scale: 30 - You were amazing, I will remember your performance long after the round, you should teach other students how to do debate right. 29 - You were great, I was impressed by your performance, but not overwhelmed. 28 - You were good, but there is room for improvement. 27- There is a lot of room for improvement. 26 - You were not so good. 25 and below - You said something offensive.  

My Background

I competed in Public Forum for Evanston Township High School, mainly on the national circuit, and I graduated in 2015.

If you have any additional questions feel free to ask. If you have an issue with my decision also please feel free to communicate with me about that after the round.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
UC Berkeley Parli Invitational 1/28/2017 Open R5 Berkel BM Campol DV Aff Neg on a 2-1
UC Berkeley Parli Invitational 1/28/2017 Open R5 Prospe JD LosAlt DH Aff Aff on a 3-0
UC Berkeley Parli Invitational 1/28/2017 JV R4 Irvington KK Berkeley FS Aff
National Parliamentary Debate Invitational at Berkeley 11/12/2016 Open Double Berkeley CG Campolindo GV Neg Neg on a 3-0
National Parliamentary Debate Invitational at Berkeley 11/12/2016 Open R4 Berkeley BM Notre Dame MM Neg
National Parliamentary Debate Invitational at Berkeley 11/12/2016 Open R3 OR Independent LS Los Altos BZ Neg
National Parliamentary Debate Invitational at Berkeley 11/12/2016 Open R2 Dougherty Valley CR Bishop O'Dowd HY Neg
National Parliamentary Debate Invitational at Berkeley 11/12/2016 Open R2 Los Altos CL Washington JR Aff
The Harker School Nichols Invitational 9/30/2016 VPF O Leland WT Milpitas PJ Aff Aff on a 3-0
The Harker School Nichols Invitational 9/30/2016 VPF D Cambridge HK Dougherty Valley KP Aff Aff on a 3-0
The Harker School Nichols Invitational 9/30/2016 VPF R6 Dougherty Valley SM Henry M. Gunn KB Neg
The Harker School Nichols Invitational 9/30/2016 VPF R6 Seattle SK Amador Valley CK Aff
The Harker School Nichols Invitational 9/30/2016 VPF R5 Dougherty Valley SJ Oakwood School - North Hollywood HR Neg
The Harker School Nichols Invitational 9/30/2016 VPF R5 Mission San Jose AC Milpitas PJ Neg
The Harker School Nichols Invitational 9/30/2016 VPF R2 College Prep TO Seattle GS Neg
The Harker School Nichols Invitational 9/30/2016 VPF R2 St. Francis MH Mission San Jose DS Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/30/2016 PF Oct Madison West BR Hackley SF Neg Neg on a 2-1
Tournament of Champions 4/30/2016 PF R6 University WS Millard North HW Aff
Tournament of Champions 4/30/2016 PF R4 Walt Whitman WW Hackley SF Neg
Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament 2/13/2016 VPF Double Harker RJ Los Altos AL Aff Aff on a 2-1
Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament 2/13/2016 VPF Triple Milpitas LT Oakwood School - North Hollywood CW Aff Aff on a 2-1
Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament 2/13/2016 VPF Triple Foothill FH Harker JM Aff Aff on a 2-1
Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament 2/13/2016 VPF R6 L C Anderson RS St. Francis VG Aff
Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament 2/13/2016 VPF R6 Mission San Jose WK Nova 42 NC Aff
Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament 2/13/2016 VPF R5 College Prep ZO James Logan Ad Aff
Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament 2/13/2016 VPF R5 Los Altos MP Mission San Jose GN Aff