Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

I am a high school history teacher with extensive international traveling experience. I have been involved with Speech and debate programs since 2003 and I was an individual events speaker when I was in high school. When I am judging I look for excellence in the following categories:

-Organization

-Research with facts

-Presenting approprate clash

-Speaking clearly

Whenever I judge I always try my best to flow the argument and offer lots of feedback on my ballots. I expecially like when students present their arguments with historical examples.

General advice for students who I am judging:

-Please do not spread arguments so fast that I cannot keep up with your words

-Please define all terms so I am sure you are knowlegeable in what you are discussing

-Please maintain a respectful attitude toward your opponent(s) throughout the round

POLICY DEBATE

I competed in varsity policy debate for one year, and 2015-2016 is my fourth season judging high school policy debate. I am a policymaker judge.

And, I hate spreading!

• I will not flow arguments I don't understand because of your poor delivery skills
• I can't extend your argument through a round if I never had it down at all
• One of your goals as a CX debater is to stack as many arguments as you can, but you absolutely must remain within your own limit of what you can deliver properly

This is a public speaking debate event. Act and speak like it. If you simply want to have the most number of arguments for "education" purposes, you should instead write 50-page white papers and I'd gladly read them. If you are going too fast, I will call "clear" or drop my pen or just stare at you or any combination thereof, thus, not flowing.

IMPORTANT: Signpost, signpost, signpost!

I don't want to have to figure out for you where your argument or card ends and where the next one starts. It's your job to tell me that. If you don't, and tell me in a later speech to extend an argument you did not signpost properly, I won't be able to find your argument.

If you must deviate from your roadmap, say it. If you're all over the place, you risk my not being able to catch an argument because I'm trying to find where to flow you. Organization is also critical in your speaker points.

Stock issues are prima facie burdens

Aff always has the prima facie burden of proving stock issues. Aff can lose my ballot if the burden of proof for ALL stock issues are not met.

• Topicality: Yes, I vote on T, but Neg has a responsibility to run sensible and ethical T arguments. I've voted against T many times before for being outlandish, frivolous, or otherwise a misrepresentation of facts.

Cards that say differently from their tags...

...Are unethical, abusive, and strictly prohibited. If there is a dispute, be prepared to show me the cards in question. If this is a pattern, expect your speaker points to plummet, and could potentially cost you the round.

Tag team cross-examination: Never in varsity rounds, always in novice rounds. I may prohibit this in JV rounds if at least one student opposes it very strongly. When tag teaming is allowed, I will still score each speaker's performance separately.

Cross-examination and prep time: I don't flow cross-examination so they don't affect who wins the round, but they are a large part of your speaker points and should affect how you try to win my ballot. Stealing prep time is strictly prohibited. "Stop prep" means that you are ready to transfer, not save, your files. When somebody has already stood up ready to give me a roadmap and start the speech, no one is allowed to be prepping in the background.

Kritiks: I'm a policymaker judge. If you can't present a K with the stated goal of directly affecting the policy I should enact/reject as your adjudicator, don't run K. If you can, more power to you!

CPs, PICs: These are fair game. I'm open to basic theory debate about CPs and PICs. But, other than that, I am a policymaker judge.

Speaker points: Because this is a high-speed debate (but I still do hate spreading!), I will not judge your body language technique. But, I will judge your overall attitude, which shows very evidently in your body language. How you speak - voice, enunciation, inflection, analysis, rhetoric, organization, etc. - will all be judged. I will only judge arguments on my flow, not performance, to determine who wins the round. I very rarely give perfect speaker points because most policy debaters tend to be good at spewing and absolutely terrible at delivery skills.

Theory debate: I'm a policymaker judge. Some theory arguments may be necessary, but I will hate a round full of theory blocks.

No new arguments in rebuttals!

This is simple and straightforward. Read new cards in the rebuttals if necessary but only to support arguments you've already made in the constructives. That said:

• If 2AC drops 1NC argument: it will be considered conceded as Aff does not have another chance to counter it
• If 2NC drops an Aff argument: the 1NR cannot construct a new argument to counter it
• If the 2NC constructs a new argument: the 1AR must answer or drop, where a drop means conceded

I have a wiki on judge philosophies,

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Swallow%2C+Jason

Undergraduate degree in Philosophy and in Rhetoric from UC Berkeley, and was on their Parli debate team. Also JD, NYU.

UPDATE:3/14/22

I have had time to rethink a lot of my paradigm. I have included my old paradigm after I returned back to debate. I am a huge proponent of accessibility and inclusion and if you need any accommodations, please let me know. I love this activity and believe everyone should have access to the same kind of love/stress. I still hold a lot of my beliefs in regards to K's and the structure. Now that I have been out of the activity and outside of the community, my threshold for speed has definitely changed but I can still pick up most things. If there's anything you need, please ask :)

--------------------

4 years of high school debate with two of them doing circuit tournaments- I did LD and International Extemp.

4 years of college debate doing both parli and LD.

I was the DOF for Eastbourne College in the UK where I taught BP and LD. I'm back in the states working in a non profit.

I'm all for whatever strategy you use as long as its accessible to your opponents. I switched between styles so I'm all for a good enjoyable debate.

Procedurals/Theories: I usually evaluate these first as I think they are a prior question to evaluating anything else. I also look at framework too prior to looking at the rest. I am keen to more proven abuse but if your articulated abuse is solid enough, I'll be responsive to it.

CP/DA: Like a good solid cp/da debate. I do need a competition block as why perms cant work and why the CP doesnt link for/ me to buy it. Ill buy PICs if there isnt much work done.

Ks-Im all for a good K. I like a solid framework and some good links instead of some nebulous links. I'll buy any K, I just need a solid weighing mechanism and framing of the impx and solvency.

so basically I'm just down for a good time not a long time, I like the voters to be succinct and dont like repetitions cause thats no fun. Its your debate so I don't want to input too much in here. Last speeches should be making things clear for me, I dont like doing the work for others and refuse to intervene.

Also as a side note, Im cool with spreading I just am not down for the mumbles.

Also be nice, thats always cool.

I have competed on the circuit in both Policy and LD for multiple years but ultimately my judging is influenced by my policy background. I can handle speed for the most part as long as you remain clear. I'll yell "Clear" if you are unclear. Below applies both to LD and Policy. 

Kritiks 

• My ballots in the past have leaned towards kritikal affirmatives and negative arguments but I'm willing to vote on stock issues. 

• Do not run anything kritikal in front of me unless you completely understand the argument you are making and know how to run it. I debated very kritikal heavy in high school and unless you truly understand your argument, it becomes a mess on the flow and kills the clash of the round. 

• If you run a kritik well, run it in front of me. 

Prep Time/Evidence Sharing 

• Don't steal prep, I'll mark down speaks if you do. Prep stops when your opponent gets the flash in their hand. If you're reading off paper, hand them to your opponent as you read them. 

• Flash everything in a single document, it saves time. 

• All evidence read in round should be flashed to your opponent. If your school has a policy against evidence sharing, strike me. 

• If you didn't share it, I won't read it. 

Theory 

• Debaters commonly fail to give a solid reason on why the violation warrants dropping the debater instead of the argument.  

• I default to drop the argument, not the debater so if you run a shell in front of me that calls to drop the debater, make sure you explain why the violation is detrimental to the round. 

• Kills educations and competing fairness usually isn't enough, by themselves, to win drop the debater. 

• Theory arguments I commonly made in high school include Whole Resolution / Plans Bad, Truth Testing vs Competing Worlds, Role Playing Policymakers vs Discourse, Conditionality, PICs Good/Bad so I'm extremely familiar with the argument themselves and how they should be ran. 

I'll pretty much consider any intellectual argument as long as it's ran well. I'll disclose after the round if both teams want it and I'll disclose speaks if asked. I'm more than willing to give critiques after I turn in my ballot.