Email: canyoncrestgy@gmail.com

Tabula rasa judge. The rules of debate are debatable- prove it. If you’re going to spread make sure you are articulate and pronunciate well.

Add me to the email chain: rithvik321@gmail.com

Pre-HWL update: I read an NFU aff on the college XA topic and judged at CPS, so I'll get acronyms and know the core affs + neg generics pretty well. I really enjoyed the debates I judged at CPS and hope to be preffed by similar debaters. My points in LD have been a little low, so I'll correct for that, but I still won't be giving out 29s like candy.

Top level: Judge direction and technical sharpness should be your top priorities. I'm not very expressive unless you make a particularly bad or reprehensible argument. Please flow!

For policy debates: If judge kick isn't debated out, I'll kick CPs for the neg. I err neg on CP theory unless there's a clear abuse story. I think States and ESR are legitimate but can be compelled that planks added to get out of solvency deficits, amendments, kicking planks, etc. are theoretically suspect.

For K debates: I read the K a lot in high school (mostly Baudrillard and settler colonialism) and have made mostly policy arguments in college (save for Cap), so I am okay with judging in clash purgatory. I don't mind whether neg teams go for fairness or skills-type arguments, but both sides should do clear impact comparison. I also strongly prefer that K teams follow the line-by-line. If you say "but methods debate" in a K v K debate, I will have no idea what this means.

Cheapshots: I read Sextus Empiricus, the sorites paradox, etc. in high school, and I will vote for this genre of argument if you execute well, but I really prefer judging real arguments.

LD:

---Yes: policy or K arguments (especially topic-specific), theory like condo/PICs bad

---No thanks: "traditional" arguments

---Absolutely not: frivolous theory/tricks/"I hate clash"

Final notes: Have fun, and don't take yourself too seriously! If you have any questions, ask before the round or email me.

CCA '18
Email: jenniferxtang@gmail.com

• Do what you do best, I will evaluate all arguments equally(with the exception of patriarchy/racism/ableism/etc good).
• Tech>Truth but both are important
• TKOs - definitely a thing in front of me
• Disclosure is good in most instances.
• Flashing isn't prep. Please don't steal prep.
• Be nice and don't be an asshole to the other team or to me.

**UPDATE: I have not judged debate since Cal 2022. If you want to win, please start at 60% of your top speed and during rebuttals and please slow down on arguments you want me to actually evaluate. I swear nobody actually reads this so if you do read this, please tell me you read this before round and i will give u +0.5 speaker points.

*****

the most important thing of all: i am annoyed by how often i get postrounded by debaters who expected me to vote on an argument that was very unclearly articulated / basically not explained at all. if you want to win with argument x, please invest some time in your speech to explain argument x.

in the absence of arguments claiming otherwise, i will default to these:

neg presumption

tech > truth

comparative worlds

competing interps, rvis bad, drop the debater

fairness is most definitely a voter, education may or may not be

debate is probably a good activity (i am very neutral towards this and can easily be convinced otherwise)

******

background: canyon crest 20, duke 24

canyoncrestjy@gmail.com

please dont shake my hand

I debated 4 years of LD at Canyon Crest. I've done it all/tried everything out at one point or another -- policy, theory/tricks, nontopical, identity, high theory, etc. Thus, I care less about what you read and more about how you execute it.

Personally, I hated judge paradigms that said "i dont like x" or "i wont evaluate y" -- i believe this is your debate space, not mine.

i like fast debate -- slow debate is truly insufferable. this, however, is a double edged sword -- if you do fast debate terribly you will be punished for it.

there is a difference between being assertive and being an ass in cx

if you justify racism/genocide/bigotry good, you'll lose with the lowest speaks possible. if you lose to racism/genocide/bigotry good, please go home and reconsider if debate is for you.

things i like:

being a chiller, weighing your arguments, objectively winning the debate/doing anything that makes my job easier

things i dislike:

thanking me for being here, the phrase "off-time roadmap", the phrases " i stand in firm affirmation/negation", the phrase "Time starts in 3, 2, 1, now", a messy debate (this is different from a very close debate), 0 clash, vague/lack of signposting, using unnecessary strategies against novices/those obviously less skilled than you (this is your fastest ticket to the 25-26 speaker pt range)

Hey, y’all! I’m Natalia (pronouns: she/her/hers, if this somehow comes up in/out of round). Welcome to my paradigm :)

—FOR NOVICES (updated 12/5/19)—

I was my high school's LD captain and coach for two years, and I also did a fair amount of middle school judging. I'm pretty comfortable with teaching and judging novices--kinda miss it, tbh. A couple miscellaneous things to remember:

Content: Almost any style of argumentation is okay: I'm happy to judge either a traditional or a more progressive debate. More details in the "Argumentation Types" section below.

Speaking:

Key rule of thumb: do what's comfortable for you. Speaks won't depend on if you stand or sit, if you do or don't shake my hand, or if you do or don't wear formal wear.

Be nice to your opponent! I will literally and figuratively frown upon unnecessary aggression or dunking on a less experienced debater. More details in the "Speaks" section below.

I'm okay with spreading. That said, only spread if:

1. You and your opponent are BOTH okay with it. Ask beforehand if you aren't sure!

2. You can be clear and efficient. I'll tell you "clear" if I think you need it, but more than 2 "clear"s will get your speaks docked. Breathing heavily (or double breathing) might make you sound like you're spreading, but it can sometimes be slower than just speaking a bit more quickly.

3. You're willing to send your opponent and me a speech doc: zorrilla@princeton.edu. I won't vote on analytics I can't flow, so please slow down for these and taglines/authors.

More questions: feel free to keep reading. Otherwise, see you in round!

P.S.: if you can work in a casual reference to any of the lyrics of Smash Mouth's seminal classic "All Star" in round, I will be happy, and your speaks will, too.

—EXPERIENCE—

High School: Debated in LD for four years in a small school in Southern California. Full disclosure: was mostly a lay debater (qualled to States my sophomore year and Nats my junior year). That said, went to camp the summer after sophomore year and went on the (West Coast) circuit my junior year, with decent records.

College: Currently compete in parli (APDA, BP) at Princeton. Will probably major in philosophy or politics.

TL;DR: Pref me lower if you want to be judged by a career circuit debater (lol), but you could honestly do a lot worse than me.

—ARGUMENTATION TYPES—

I’ll listen to almost anything. Just warrant it well and—I feel like this goes by the wayside (weighside?) a lot—weigh very, very, very clearly, esp. between layers.

Framework/Philosophy: It should maybe tell you something that I am considering majoring in philosophy. I love and wrote my college essays about ethics. I also researched/wrote/ran a decent amount of framework-y cases. While I have basic knowledge of a variety of ethical positions, pretend I don’t and explain the framework to me/your opponent as if you’re explaining it to your best friend who loathes philosophy (s/o to the ever-patient Reva Agashe). Jargon just makes the round unnecessarily inaccessible, and it doesn’t actually convince me you understand what you’re saying (which will predispose me to lower speaks if not a loss). Otherwise, I’m pretty psyched to hear your ideas about framework. As long as you don’t use it as a Trojan horse for your tricks.

LARP/Policy: Again, it should maybe tell you something that I am considering majoring in politics. I read a lot of LARP in high school, I’m pretty up on history and (macro)economics, and I quasi-obsessively follow the news/Twitter. I feel very comfortable evaluating LARP debates. I won’t judge arguments on truth value unless your opponent challenges them, but, like, an argument that clearly accounts for the current political climate is probably better warranted anyway than an argument that doesn’t.

Ks: Didn’t run a lot of Ks. Did debate in California and therefore have a lot of friends who did, including basically all of my labmates at camp. Helped a bunch of said K-loving friends do casewriting. I don’t have a strong predisposition either way on the T v. K debate. I do not love but will vote on vague alts if they aren’t adequately challenged.

Theory: I’ll evaluate it however argued, but definitely not my favorite kind of debate to judge. If you make me vote on something like font size theory, I’ll probably give you lower speaks.

Tricks: Blippy analytics intended to avoid clash make me sad and, as much as I should theoretically try to be tabula rasa, I am very unlikely to vote you up on them. Consider yourself warned, I guess?

TL;DR: Here’s my recommended prefs:

1: Framework/philosophy, LARP/policy

2: Ks

3: Theory (friv theory’s a 4, though)

4: Tricks

—SPEAKS—

30: L O V E D this round. Will probably tell my friends about you later. You are who I wish I could be.

29-range: Really enjoyed your speeches & thought your argumentation was clever/neat. Also, you probably did some very clear weighing that wrote my ballot for me (cough cough).

28-range: Upper end of middling.

27-range: Lower end of middling.

26-range: Room for improvement.

(L)20: Your arguments were overtly racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/cissexist/etc. You get it. (Related note: please don’t misgender your opponents! If you do this more than once, I’ll assume it wasn’t an accident and dock your speaks by 1-2 points.)

A bit of sass is good and will get you higher speaks! Being mean or condescending to your opponent (esp. a less experienced one! please do not make people want to quit debate) is bad and will get you lower speaks. If you don’t know the difference, don’t risk it :(

It’s been a Hot Sec since I last did circuit debate. Start your speeches on the slower end and build to full speed. But slow down on taglines/authors so I can flow them. I’ll tell you to clear twice before I start docking speaks (I will still tell you to clear if I think you’re being unclear). If I don’t flow analytics because you are too unclear for me to hear them, I obviously will not be able to vote on said analytics, so, like, maybe also slow down a bit on things that aren’t in the speech doc.

Also, to make the round more enjoyable for all of us, I‘ll boost your speaks an undefined amount (probably like half a point?) if you work a noticeable and, like, marginally creative pun into your 2NR/2AR. I think this topic is particularly ripe source material, so please don’t let me down :’)

TL;DR: I think I’m generally pretty generous! Just don’t make the round unpleasant for me and/or your opponent.

—MISCELLANEOUS—

Disclose! But as someone whose wiki broke her first tournament, I get that sometimes stuff happens and will evaluate disclosure theory accordingly.

I don’t have a good poker face. You’ll probably be able to tell roughly what I’m thinking by looking at me. That said, sometimes my “thinking” face looks like my “disagreeing” face, so don’t stress too much.

Add me to the email chain: zorrilla@princeton.edu. SpeechDrop or whatever Kids These Days are using is also chill. I’ll obviously flow your arguments, but you will probably like my decision better if I get to read along with your speech.

On evidence ethics: Since debate is, first and foremost, an educational activity, I take evidence ethics claims (i.e. claims of changes to a card that significantly change its meaning) pretty seriously. If you are willing to stake the round on an accusation that this has happened, raise your hand and tell me what card/cards you would like to challenge. Time will stop, I’ll ask you to explain yourself/your opponent to explain themselves, and then I’ll review the card. If I think the card is miscut, your opponent will receive an L25. If I don’t think the card is miscut, you’ll get the L25. I get that challenges like these can be emotionally draining, but PLEASE continue to be kind/at least civil to your opponents.

On bad-faith postrounding: is yelling at someone about a decision that isn’t going to change really worth it, especially if (hint hint) they can just leave the room and go get some free, warm cookies from Murray-Dodge? In the grand scheme of things, debate is probably not important enough to merit being nasty to other humans. I’m human. Bad calls will happen. We’re all trying our best.

If you have any other questions, feel free to email me at zorrilla@princeton.edu or hit me up on FB Messenger!