Being rude to opponents is not a good strategy.

Rolling your eyes will tank your speaks. Being rude and toxic will tank your speaks.

Lay out your arguments in a clear and slow manner so I can understand your points.

I vote off crossfire. Can't help it, but I do.

PF & Parli coach for Nueva

- Use your agency to make this safe space and non-hostile to all debaters & judges

- non-interventionist until the point where something aggressively problematic is said (read: problematic: articulating sexist, racist, ableist, classist, queerphobic, anything that is oppressive or entrenches/legitimates structural violence in-round)

- tech over truth

- please time yourselves and your opponent: I don't like numbers and I certainly don't like keeping track of them when y'all use them for prep, if you ask me how much time you have left I most probably won't know

- if you finish your speech and have extra time at the end, please do not take that time to "go over my own case again" - I recommend weighing if you want to finish your speech time, or alternatively, just end your speech early

parli-specific:

- I guess I expect debaters to ask POI's, but I won't punish you for not asking them in your speaker scores

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speakers are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- I do my best to protect the flow, but articulate points of order anyway

- recently I've heard rounds that include two minutes of an "overview/framework" explaining why tech debate/using "technical terms" in debate is bad - I find this irritating, so it would probably be in your best interest to not run that, although it's not an automatic loss for you, it simply irks me

- feel free to ask questions within "protected time" - it's the debater's prerogative whether or not they accept the POI, but I don't mind debaters asking and answering questions within

- I like uniqueness, I like link chains, I like impact scenarios! These things make for substantive, educational debates!

pf-specific:

- I don't call for cards unless you tell me to; telling me "the ev is sketchy" or "i encourage you to call for the card" isn't telling me to call for the card. tell me "call for the card" - picking and choosing cards based on what I believe is credible or not is sus and seems interventionist

- I don't flow cross fire but it works well to serve how much you know the topic. regardless, if you want anything from crossfire on my flow, reference it in-speech.

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speaker points are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- if you want me to evaluate anything in your final focus make sure it's also in your summary, save for of course frontlines by second-speaking teams - continuity is key

- in terms of rebuttal I guess I expect the second speaking team to frontline, but of course this is your debate round and I'm not in charge of any decisions you make

- hello greetings defense is sticky

- please please please please please WEIGH: tell me why the args you win actually matter in terms of scope, prob, mag, strength of link, clarity of impact, yadda yadda

Other than that please ask me questions as you will, I should vote off of whatever you tell me to vote off of given I understand it. If I don't understand it, I'll probably unknowingly furrow my eyebrows as I'm flowing. Blippy extensions may not be enough for me - at the end of the day if you win the round because of x, explain x consistently and cleanly so there's not a chance for me to miss it.

email me at gia.karpouzis@gmail.com with any questions or comments or if you feel otherwise uncomfortable asking in person

This Paradigm is mostly for Parli Debate I have additional LD stuff at the end, so skip to that if it's LD, if you have questions, just ask

TL;DR: Dont spread your opponents out, Theory and K are accepted, and I love good logical weighing and impact weighing. Above all else, please be respectful to your opponents.

Background:

I debated for four years at Crescenta Valley High School mainly in Parli Debate but also competed in Congress, LD, and Policy often. I now do BP at USC and study Industrial and Systems Engineering.

Most Important:

I really like logic based arguments. I tend to way rebuttal a little bit more than other judges because I love it if you can take down your opponent's argument with a creative but clear argument. Overall though, it is parli so I will default to net benefits when judging unless you tell me a different weighting mechanism. So please, tell me why your impacts outweigh. This is crucial. Tell me why your impact is more important than your opponents. And please, terminalize impacts and have a good link chain

Theory:

I like theory debates, but please don't run theory for the sake of running theory

Make your abuse clear and impact them out, why is it so important that I vote on the theory

It should be specific to the round currently, don't just run some generic bs that you just found online

I usually do not take RVI's unless it is clear that if offers a clear time skew that because you had to argue against the theory and the RVI is well laid out.

Kritiks:

I generally did not run many Kritiks in high school, but I am okay to listening to them, just don't go too fast.

However, I generally am less inclined to vote for Ks especially if they: have generic links, spread out your opponent, or it's something that makes absolutely no sense

Also: SIGNPOST

Counterplans:

Counterplans are awesome, run them as much as you like. I prefer unconditional counterplans, but you can run condo plans if you wish. However, if the opponent runs a semblance of decent condo theory against you, then i'll probably default condo bad. However, personally, condo isn't that big of a voting issue

Presentation:

Speed: I prefer slower debates so I'm not bombarded with a bunch of information, but I'm totally fine with spreading unless your opponents can't understand it

Tag-Teaming is allowed, unless the tournament specifically forbids it, but just do not completely control your partner and essentially dictate their speech for them.

POI: I dont flow them specifically, but I will remember it if it was an exceptional question.

Humor and charisma is good

Please dont troll or have personal attacks against your opponent, aka dont be an ass

Value and Fact Rounds

For fact rounds, I default on the criterion of logic which will be mostly based on the coherence of your points, the rigor of your arguments, and the relevance of your examples. Unless of course a team creates another framework.

For Value rounds: I judge based on which value is best upheld. If there are two conflicting values on either team, then I will prefer a team that can show me how they are upholding both values. If neither team does this, then I will vote on which value has been best defended as more pertinent or important. If there is one value, then I will see which side best upholds the value.

LD

Most of the stuff is pretty similar as with Parli, like my preferences on Ks, Spreading, Theory, CPs but here are a few specifics

Framework:

I love framework but make sure that it is something that I can understand. If you run some super complicated framework I will not give you the benefit of the doubt. In essence, if your framework is filled with philosophical theory, explain it clearly.

Speed:

For LD especially, slow down during your taglines and your value/vc.

Non traditional Cases:

Honestly, I would prefer debates on the topic at hand, just because it is more enjoyable personally. However, I won't dock you for running anything non-traditional. I don't have a huge knowledge library of complicated philosophical theory so make sure it is something I can understand with your explanation

DA:
DAs are fun, just structure them correctly, make sure they actually apply specifically to the aff case.