I read heg good please don't hurt me

It’s been a while since I’ve debated - it may take me longer to evaluate a round but not much about my thinking process has changed!

background

HS parli & NPDA; won TOC/NPDI/Stanford, etc.

general things

- I view debate through an offense/defense paradigm. Offense means this argument is a win condition for you. Defense means this is argument is not a win condition for them. If you want me to evaluate the round in a different way, I am open to those arguments.

- I believe every claim should be warranted in order for it to be the best version of that argument. This makes weighing easier - aka I see that something has a probability/magnitude/timeframe if there's an empiric or analytic to prove it. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate claims that are not warranted, but I have a paradigmatic preference for warranted claims over unwarranted claims.

- When you extend an argument, here are some useful things to do:

1. the tagline/warrant you want me to extend
2. a brief explanation of what it is
3. the implication of that argument.

- To me, an implication of an argument is how it functions within an offense/defense paradigm. For example, "we link turn the aff" has an offensive implication because it is a win condition for you. Conversely, saying "the aff has no solvency" has a defensive implication because it means their case is not a win condition for them. If you don't know the implication to an argument, force yourself to come up with one. It will make you better at debate and life but also debate doesn't matter so it's okay.

- In general, collapse to the most strategic arguments. This is why I emphasize treating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm because you can then isolate if an argument has a strategic function to leverage.

case

- I'm most experienced with case debate, and I like good case debates. You can win anything on a disad <3

- Warrant your links. Aka find case studies of where your plan has worked before.

- Do not read disads where the status quo is bad. Squo should solve. Otherwise, its a linear disadvantage. My partner once banned me from writing DAs because this is a hard concept so it's honestly okay. I also don't believe deficit spending DAs are convincing arguments.

- Read CPs that solve for the some/all of the aff. Do not read advantages to your counterplan. Read disads to the aff. Your job as the neg is to disprove the aff. You have not done that if you are passing a plan with its own advantages. Unfortunately, there's no clash.

- I default to functional competition > textual competition because I believe perms are first and foremost a test of competition, not an advocacy. Functional is the substance level of the round. Textual refers to texts.

- Only read uniqueness you can solve for. Aka you cannot solve for your global climate change uniqueness if your plan is only that San Francisco implements solar panels.

theory

- Interps describe the model of debate you defend for all rounds. It is not just about what happened in this round (unless its topicality). Your standards should justify your interp being a good model for debate, and not about what happened to YOU SPECIFICALLY. Along the same lines, you should not be answering the standards of a shell by saying "we did not do this," but rather why the logic of that standard is wrong/good/etc. This is something I also didn't understand until later, so I get if this is difficult to execute.

- I default to competing interps. Reasonability should be read with a brightline. If you say reasonability means I should gut check something, I take this to mean judge intervention based on what I personally think, but this is kinda lame because I personally hate intervention. Therefore, my gut check is to default to competing interps lmao, unless you make it very explicit that you don't want me judging based on the flow whatsoever.

- Please weigh between standards. Treat theory shells like you would case arguments. If both teams are trying to say they solve for war, each team still has to weigh their China/US and Russia/US internal link scenarios against each other. Similarly, if both teams say they solve for fairness, each team has to weigh their predictability and limits standards against each other.

kritiks

- K vs K rounds tend to become pretty messy when neither team leverages their framework or offense, so I end up voting on presumption to limit intervention if I have no choice. Presumption is the idea that if there is a lack of offense in the round, I will vote for the status quo. As a result, I believe presumption defaults negative, unless the negative provides a counter advocacy. In this case, it flips affirmative.

- K's are hard, but here are some things you should do:
1. frame out your opponents with an epistemic/ontological/semiotic skew claim
2. have warranted links that also function as case turns, and
3. find a way for your alternative/advocacy to solve parts of your opponents case.

- If you don't know what these mean, that's okay. All I'm looking for is offense that will win you the round. If there's a bunch of parallel claims being made with no broader explanation as to how I should evaluate the round, this is where my job becomes difficult. If you find yourself confused, we can talk about it later its nbd!

So apparently I haven't judged in a while..

not quite familiar with the current norms of parli now

I'm just down to hear some good args and chill

I probably judge reasonably the same as before

Updated September 2020

Mostly everything below still applies. Main update about kritiks: I am pretty down to hear kritiks, but will get sad if the kritik misrepresents source material. Buzzwords and tags only will make me sad, but if you've actually read the source material, actually UNDERSTAND what the arguments mean, and can EXPLAIN CLEARLY the argument, I will be very happy :)) THE K IS NOT A TOOL FOR EXCLUSION. IF YOU DO(and with any other argument as well), THAT IS GROUNDS FOR ME TO INTERVENE IN THE ROUND.

K affs should be disclosed, and if you do not disclose, I am very sympathetic to disclosure arguments.

And because I cannot stress this enough..

On weighing: SUPER IMPORTANT DO IT. PMR should have access to weighing arguments, unless it's a new internal link scenario. I would generally like to see weighing arguments starting in the MO, but will allow LOR to make weighing arguments, but depending on the scope of the weighing, may give it less weight. Generally speaking, whoever does better weighing tends to win the round. Hopefully that incentivizes you to weigh.

ALSO please i love helping people with debate, so if any questions, email me at shirleych@gmail.com

(and i literally mean any, doesn't matter if i've judged you before or not, PLEASE reach out to me)

_______________________________

Background

debated HS parli for 3.5 years, public forum for 2 years, coached MVLA for two years and in my third year of coaching Gunn parli

General

Tabula rasa

tech over truth, but keep in mind subconsciously I may be more likely to believe arguments that are the truth if the tech debate is close

Fine with speed(~250 wpm)

Fine with tagteaming, but only flows what speaker says

will do my best to protect, but you should still call POOs on new arguments in case I do not catch it, if there are things that are kind of new but not really, I will give them less weight in the round

no shadow extensions

no stealing prep

WEIGHING WILL WIN YOU THE ROUND. WEIGHING SHOULD ALWAYS BE COMPARATIVE AND CONTEXTUAL TO THE ROUND. The easiest way to my ballot is to weigh. I don't like bad weighing arguments that are generic and not comparative but if nobody else makes weighing arguments in the round, then I will appreciate your effort in at least trying.

some examples of incorrect and correct weighing arguments

Incorrect: "We win because our adv 1 has the biggest magnitude in the round since they did not refute our adv 1" (does not contextualize and compare to other arguments in the round)

Also incorrect: " " (<- the reference here is not doing weighing)

Correct: "We win because our adv 1 saves MORE lives than their DA 1 due to the fact that [x thing mentioned in Adv 1] affects more people than the potential [y problem in DA] would affect" (note how this is comparative and contextual)

An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication, and I am hesitant to vote on only claims

I hate voting on presumption and if I have to intervene a little bit to not vote on presumption, I will do that. This is not to say I just randomly like to intervene. I find that the times when I get close to voting on presumption is when BOTH teams have not made explicit offense but rather have gotten close to making an offensive argument(usually in some implicit form). In that case, if one side gets closer to making an offensive argument than the other, I will generally be okay with doing the work for them and considering that just offense. Note that this is just what I default to, not that I will never vote on presumption if the argument is made.

I generally dislike voting off of arguments that are not in the LOR, even if it's in the MO. I do not need the full explanation in the LOR if it's explained in the MO, but it should at least be highlighted as a tagline in the LOR.

How I judge rounds

to note: for me defensive responses on an arg function as mitigation to the risk of the arg happening (ie I'll be more skeptical of the arg and I will evaluate this as the arg having very minimal risk of happening. Depending on how good the defense is, the risk will differ of course, but it's rare that I will believe an arg has 100% chance of not happening unless the other team straight up concedes it. Because this is how I evaluate args, weighing is super super super important)

Case

I read mostly case in hs. I enjoy seeing specific impact scenarios, warrants, weighing arguments and strategic collapses. I care a lot about weighing. If no weighing arguments are made, I look at strength of link * magnitude. I rarely vote on magnitude in a vacuum.

CPs

I like them and they're cool. not a huge fan of condo, am a fan of pics, these are just what my preferences were when I debated, but I'm open to hearing arguments that go both ways

Theory

I default to competing interps. I don't like frivolous theory and will probably have a lower threshold for reasonability and RVI on friv theory.

Having specific interps is good.

Kritiks

I was not a K debater and am unfamiliar with most lit. I have a pretty good conceptual understanding of cap, biopower, security, colonialism, orientalism, and some nihilism args, but probably won't know the specific author you may read. I will probably know very little about any post modern lit you may want to read. Overall, please make sure to explain your K thoroughly and don’t go too fast, and explain any weird jargon.

Things I have read actual lit on: critical race theory, ableism, and Daoism. I have also read literature that references orientalism and discusses applications of orientalism, but have not read Said's original work. Reading these arguments could go in your favor but it could also not. I like seeing these arguments, but I'll know when you're misrepresenting the argument if you do, and I don't like it when people misrepresent arguments.

I am okay with K affs, but if you do not disclose, I am sympathetic to disclosure theory.

Speaker Points

I do not give speaker points based on presentation. Strategic arguments, warrants, weighing, and collapsing will earn you high speaks. I tend to find that the better and more weighing you do, the better your speaks will be. Hopefully this an incentive for you to do more weighing.

also dedev is cool, will give high speaks if read well

Update for ToC 2023

I want to be impressed by your debating.

1. I am more distanced from the community now, so wow me with the new meta and some innovation or just go for heg. I will struggle a bit with speed and I may not resolve complicated layering debates in predictable ways, particularly on positions I am unfamiliar with. I tend to find ballots on fairness.

2. Since I care less about competition and more about pedagogy, I'm less inclined to vote for frivolous positions in close debates. I will not intervene against your new tricks, but beware my wrath on your speaks.

3. Let your timer ring in NSDA campus if your opponent is speaking over time. There are too many weird, untimed speeches happening online to not be clear about this.

4. If there are technical, "West Coast" debaters that are deliberately making debate less accessible, I am open to voting on arguments that this specific behavior is bad and ought to be punished. However, I will not vote on arguments that say that all arguments of a certain kind are bad. If your strategy is to complain that a position is prima facie inaccessible, you should strike me.

Argument content and speed seem to be the two aspects of debate that people find inaccessible. I caution any team reading arguments about the accessibility of debate:

First, genuine attempts to engage are a necessary condition to win that a position is inaccessible. For example, if the 1NC argues that the 1AC is too fast and therefore inaccessible, I would expect that the negative littered the 1AC with POIs asking for clarification. The optimal scenario for accessibility is one in which requests for certain practices are made before the round begins, ideally before prep.

Second, a viable alternative vision of debate, this round, and the ballot is necessary. What should debate look like? How does the ballot affect it? Do I completely abandon the burden of rejoinder or apply a different standard? An argument about accessibility should answer all of these questions. If you don't provide an alternative to the burden of rejoinder, I'll likely vote on conceded responses to speed bad or cross-applications of critical arguments against K's bad, because those are common arguments that you tend to drop. That will be difficult for you, but you have been forewarned.

Third, realize that inaccessibility is not solved by excluding certain positions or practices. Mandating debaters speak below a certain rate or banning critical positions is not liberatory - it's antithetical to liberation for some, and a bit authoritarian for my taste. You are reading a position to win the round just like everyone else. That's cool, but do not pretend/argue that speed is the worst form of exclusivity and that a ballot for you would solve everything.

TL;DR

Move fast and break things. You do you, unless you avoid line-by-line, give meaningless overviews, or drop arguments. Don’t do that. Do some argument resolution. Adapt to your opponents and think strategically before the speech/round/tournament.

Arguments require warrants. Tech >>>>>>>>>> Truth. Good framing makes voting simpler. I’m a link person more than a uniqueness person. K affs are fine, but I like fw. I enjoy direct, substantive clash. Theory is fine.

Background

he/him/his; Bellarmine College Prep ‘19, Georgetown ‘23; I like economics; debated at Bell, Notre Dame, and MVLA; coached at MVLA; coached Evergreen MS.

In high school, I read politics, heg, and long, conditional 1NCs. I went to one college tournament and read a queer temporality performance aff, framework, cap, and theory (and case!).

My resting face can be frowning or stern. Don’t take it badly - I’m just thinking.

Ballot

I will intervene on speech times, giving at most one win, that I only flow what the designated speaker says, and that structural violence in debate is real. If necessary, give content/trigger warnings before the round/speech. Deliberate misgendering along with anything else morally abhorrent is an auto-loss.

Claims require warrants. Pointing out that an argument lacks a warrant is sufficient for terminal defense. Empirics > analytics > testimonies. Interaction does not require signposting, but it helps.

Conceded claims need not be extended. If an argument is dropped, I will consider it true. But, I should be able to explain the arguments I’m voting on, so a quick explanation when extending an important argument would hel.

Style

I don’t care iff I can understand you. I will yell clear if necessary, but after a three times, I will stop flowing. Slow down on tags and be clear with subpoints, please. Except in cases where your opponent is unable to compete with your speech, I’m down for speed. If you’re in doubt, I will default to tournament norms for speed/tech.

Case, I guess

Case defense is overrated, case offense is appropriately rated, framing is underrated. A long framing sheet, even as early as the 1AC, is great. Impact terminalization and weighing is a must in case debates. Absent these arguments, intervention is more likely necessary to resolve the debate.

Infinite condo with intrinsicness perms is sounds like a fun model for debate. I find myself arguing that uniqueness controls the link but believing that the other way around is more correct.

I find it difficult to evaluate turns case scenarios, squo solves, or solvency arguments that are not articulated in the context of the advantage(s).

CP

Turns out that a fresh-out-the-oven cp that defaces the absurd cherry-picking that is the aff's solvency mechanism gets me just as excited as it would get anyone else. If the 1AC internal links aren't tight, punish them. The more specific, well-warranted the solvency deficit and net benefit are, the better. PICs and actor counterplans are not good strategies.

CP theory is probably reject the argument. 2A’s, don’t bother with shell theory if the 1AR can explain the obvious brightline. It's a hard sell for me that PICs are ever legitimate on (functionally) one-topical-aff topics.

Conditionality is great and underutilized. 1 condo makes theory an uphill battle, 2 is fine, 3 is pushing it, 4+ and I'll be more sympathetic to the aff.

K’s

I wasn’t the most prolific K debater, but I’m down. If you're reading complex high theory, I'm a bad judge for you - not because I'm particularly biased against the K, but because I'm not well-versed on many lit bases and I haven't judged a lot of high theory K rounds, so I might not necessarily resolve a messy debate in the way you expect.

The criticism should disagree with and disprove the aff. I have a high threshold for voting on sweeping claims about the structure of society/the world. I’m inclined to weigh the plan/the 1AC in some form. I am more convinced by 1NCs that engage with the case.

Lit I’m comfy with: SetCol, Security, Neolib

Leave time for questions.

Framework

Bread-and-butter fairness first is fine, but I avoided this strategy, although skews eval is probably True. I'm enthused by, well-read in, and interested in watching debates of the more interesting framework impacts - self-questioning, debatability, epistemic humility, etc. Procedural fairness is still an impact, though. Defenses of policymaking are fine, args like "policymaking key to solving climate change" are silly.

IVIs

My threshold for IVIs is 1. a sufficiently strong claim to the ballot and 2. they do not operate under any existing framework in the round.

If an independent voting issue's offense operates under an existing framework in the round, it is probably not an IVI. Examples of each side of this:

1. Reading SetCol on the neg conditionally is probably a relink to the K, but unless it's a categorically distinct abuse/offense/violation, it's not an IVI.

2. Regardless of whether or not "discourse matters" framing exists in a round, saying a slur is obviously distinct from using language of settlerism. I'll drop anyone who does it instantly, but it's useful to clarify that the IVI exists under my threshold - "slurs bad" operates under a distinct framework and has a clear claim to the ballot - the IVI is justified.

If you spam IVIs, I will take a baseball bat to your speaks. An additional link to your criticism is not, in fact, an independent voting issue.

There seem to be a disturbing number of IVIs that are essentially "answering our argument is a form of {whatever we criticize}, it's an IVI." This is not how debate works. If the position centers the issue of white people/cishet people/settlers/whomever, yeah, maybe. If it's a case turn - hurts the folks you're trying to help - that's not an IVI, it's a response with which you must engage. Your ideas are subject to criticism.

Critical Affirmatives

The affirmative should be topical or impact turn fairness cleanly to win my ballot. Beware, my most controversial ballots are finding thin routes to the ballot on framework.

Develop a couple pieces of thesis-level offense and lbl effectively. You will lose if you drop fairness first (skews eval, etc.) in the 2AC. I find I often give low speaks to 2ACs on critical affirmatives because they are terrible at answering framework (which is silly, and yet...).

Unless the aff impact turns framework, the counter-interp is usually undercovered by the negative. LBLing the standards debate is usually a waste of time.

Theory/Tricks

Paragraph theory > shell theory, especially on CP theory. I don’t need an interpretation to know what condo bad or actor CPs bad means.

I default to competing interps. Absent contradictory arguments, reading an interp is not necessary to win theory, but it helps. I think reasonability (substance crowdout) is underutilized and has potential value as metatheory. All other brightlines are terrible. I’m ambivalent about RVIs - debate them. I default to and am inclined to drop the argument, barring condo.d

I'll grudgingly tolerate friv. I dislike NIBs and/or presumption triggers that have sweeping implications (truth value). I’m uncomfortable but willing to abandon offense-defense for truth-testing or anything else.

Rebuttals

Please don’t call the POO, I’ll protect. Don't POO the 1NR. I hold the line on new args higher than most judges. No new layers that are not sublayers that are responsive to arguments in the block.

I prefer early-breaking debates. I would rather the 2nd constructives make arguments about the leeway I should give the rebuttal than leave me to protect or not. Do more weighing and warrant comparison.

Other

Presumption goes to advocacy of least change absent other argumentation. In a relevant case, I will apply this standard paradigmatically (e.g. a round in which 1. all offense is zero-risk 2. the negative reads a counterplan 3. no presumption arguments are made).

Splitting the block is fine.

Explaining dense arguments will make voting on them easier.

Unless you gain significant, asymmetrical advantage from disclosure, or someone in the round requests that I do not disclose, I will disclose. Please ask questions and argue with me if you think it’ll help you be a better debater. I won't change my decision, but as long as the conversation does not become circular, I don't really care if you argue with me (as long as we maintain basic respect).

Policy >>>>>>>>>> Value > Fact. My ideal value or fact debate involves a disclosed, relevant, directional plan-text in prep and no “must/must not read plan” or trichot theory. Debate is your space, do what you want with it.

Claiming that an argument was “conceded” has replaced substantive clash in a disturbingly large number of speeches. Overusing the phrase “conceded” or (even worse) “cold conceded” will cost you speaks.

I will likely grant permission for you to audio record my RFD. Please ask before recording.

Don’t call me “judge.”

Here are cool things I didn't do/wasn't able to do/didn't do as often as I wished. If you do them well, you'll get a speaks bump; if you do them poorly, I'll be sad: embedded clash; numbering frontline responses; speed, clarity, and efficiency; advantage counterplan + impact turn; going for the politics DA with good link arguments as a real strategy; courts CPs; being a K team.

Speaks

29.7+ – top speaker.

29.3-29.7 – top 5-10 speaker.

29-29.3 – top 20 speaker.

28.5 -29 – a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; should break.

28.2-28.5 – a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.8-28.2 – a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27-27.8 – a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

Be clear even when you are being unclear.

Similar Debaters

Please reach out to ask questions or talk debate

I don't talk about debate with anyone anymore, but when I did, it was with Riley Shahar, Sierra Maciorowski, Alden O'Rafferty, Trevor Greenan, and Brian Yang. If you can't reach me pre-round, Riley and I coached (and debated) together and are similar paradigmatically, they will know how to answer your questions.

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

Last update: 8 November, 2023 for NPDI

I have mostly retired from judging but pop back in every once in a while. My familiarity with events is as follows: Parli > PF > Policy > LD > others. With that in mind, please be clear with the framework with which you would like me to evaluate the round. I will hold myself to the evaluative method defined within the context of each round. Absent one, expect that I will make whatever minimum number of assumptions necessary to be able to evaluate the round. If I find that I cannot evaluate the round... well just don't let it get there. Have fun!

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background:

-Coaching history: The Nueva School (2 yrs), Berkeley High School (2 yrs)

-Competition history: Campolindo (4 yrs, 2x TOC)

•TLDR: read what you want and don't be a bad person.

-If you do not understand the terminology contained in this paradigm, I encourage you to ask me before and/or after the round for clarification

-Please read: Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. If you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Deliberately ignoring them / misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people purposefully / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Intentional deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit to resolve these harms. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab. If there is any way that I can help you be more comfortable in this space let me know and I will see what I can do :)

•Case

-Terminalize and weigh impacts

-Uniqueness must be in the right direction

-Most familiar with UQ/L/IL/I structure, but open to other formats as long as its organized and logical

-Read good, specific links

-No impacts, no offense

-Counterplan strats are cool. do CP things, defend the squo, do whatever you want

-Use warrants

•Theory and the such

-Competing interps > reasonability, if you read reasonability it better have a brightline / a way for me to evaluate reasonability

-Friv T, NIB, or presumption triggers: not my preferred strat but if explained and justified, I have and will vote on it

-Read your RVI, justify why you get access to it

-Drop the team, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-Weigh standards, voters

-No preference for articulated vs potential abuse, have that debate and justify

•Kritik

-I won't fill in your blanks, the K must explain itself through its articulation, not its clarification

-Beware of reading identity based arguments that you are not a constituent of

-I'll listen to your K aff, justify not defending the resolution or lmk how your K aff defends the res

-Your alt/advocacy/performance better do something (or not! justify it!)

-Links must be specific, link of omission/generic links <<<<< specific links

•Misc:

-I am not a points fairy.

-if you want me to flow things well, tagline everything and signpost well

-have a strategy, read offense, collapse, justify your impact framing

-Have the condo debate, I don't default

-a thing with explanation and a warrant > a thing with no warrant but an explanation > a thing with no warrant and no explanation

-Default layering is T>=FW>K>Case, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-I can flow your speed (300+ is a bit much for online, but if i can hear it, its fine), "clear" means clear, "slow" means slow

-Speak any way you would like, so long as I can hear your speech you're fine I don't mind what else you do

-I by default track if arguments in rebuttals are new, but if you are unsure if I have flowed it as new, call the POO. When in doubt, call the POO - I will identify whether or not the POO defines an argument that is new.

-Presumption flows neg unless neg reads an advocacy, in which case presumption flows aff, i will vote on presumption but it makes me sad

-tag teaming is fine, but I only flow what the speaker says

-I don't flow POI answers, but they are binding

-if you have texts to pass, do so quickly and within the speech or during flex

-high threshold for intervening in the debate, but I will do so if justified and is the last resort

-i flow speeches, not cross, but again cross is binding

-please time yourselves. i will not time you. if you go egregiously over time I will stop you and tank your speaks

-don't be rude in cross

-i will not call for a card unless the validity of the argument it warrants determines the debate

-don't paraphrase your card or powertag, if you feel like you have to paraphrase, you probably can find a better card

-read offense, I'll only vote on things in the last speech, so if you want me to vote on it, it better be extended through the other speeches explicitly

-put me on the email chain, dgomezsiu [at] berkeley [dot] edu

-if you want extra feedback or have questions, email ^ or facebook messenger is a good place to reach me

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?

• This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.

• As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.

• I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.

• I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.

• I default to fiat being durable.

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.

• I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

• I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).

• What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

• I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.

• All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
  
  
• I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
  
  
• I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

Background:

My name is Jessica Jung. I won NPDA in 2018-2019 with my partner, Lila Lavender as a hybrid team (the first all transwomen national champion team yay!!) I also did NPDA Parli for four years in college for UC Berkeley where I competed on and off. I was mostly a kritikal debater personally but I dabbled in case and theory every so often. I generally believe that debate is a game and should be treated like one. This means that I am content agnostic (for the most part and with a few exceptions such as instances of violence in the round) and that I see debate from a more technical standpoint. Technical debate was what I learned at Cal and is what I am most familiar with and thus, that tends to affect my judging. That being said, one of my goals in debate when I competed was to turn debate into a spectacle (whether that was good or not has yet to be seen) but as such, I am very open to new arguments, new types of debate and pushing the envelope for what NPDA parli is or could be. That being said, anything that is new takes some getting used to so don't be surprised if I find these cool new novel arguments difficult to evaluate.

A few personal requests:

1. Please read trigger warnings or content warnings before discussing any topics related to sexual violence. Please do so before the round and not at the top of the PMC so that if I or anyone else in the room needs to take a second, or abstain from the debate, there is a moment to exercise some amount of personal privilege.

2. Do not misgender your opponents, intentional or otherwise. I would generally recommend defaulting to "they" if you do not know someone's pronouns and to use "my opponents" in the round as I find using people's first names in the round to be kind of uncomfortable.

3. I would prefer you do not give me a "shout out" or refer to my personal history during your speech or during debates. Not sure exactly how to phrase it but I find it uncomfortable for debaters to refer to me via first name or reference my debate history in the round. Before or after is fine, we can make small talk etc but please just don't be weird about it during the round.

4. Please debate however makes you the most comfortable, I have zero preferences whether you sit or stand, what you wear etc as long as you're respectful of your opponents and your partner.

TL;DR fine with theory, K’s, case, explain your arguments with warrants and explicit implications, will default to tech evaluation on the flow, don’t be bad to your opponents

Evaluative Framework:

- I'm comfortable with case, theory, K's etc. I'm fairly content agnostic in this regard.

- I'm fairly comfortable with speed but if I call clear or slow, please heed these requests, otherwise I will just miss things on the flow because I can't write fast enough.

- I evaluate the debate based on the flow, which generally means I will vote in whatever way minimizes my intervention in the round. I think that some amount of judge intervention is inevitable but I will still aim to make decisions with the least amount of intervention possible.

- I stole this from Trevor Greenan but we got a similar debate education so this should be totally justifiable: I vote in this order:
1. conceded arguments
2. arguments with warrants and substantive analysis
3. arguments with in-round weighing/framing
4. arguments with implicit clash/framing
5. arguments I am more familiar with

- In round articulation of arguments is very important. Even if conceded arguments have certain potential implications for the round, unless those implications are made explicit or within the original reading of the argument, I am unwilling to grant you those implications as that feels interventionist. This generally means you should be more explicit than not. This applies to: concessions, extensions, impacts, weighing etc.

- I generally don't like voting on blippy arguments or underdeveloped arguments especially if these arguments are just claims with no warrants or impacts. I have a high threshold for these types of arguments and am also willing to grant late responses if the original argument or its explanation was unclear or massively underdeveloped.

- I do not grant shadow extensions, or at the very least, treat them as new arguments. This means that arguments not extended by the MG cannot be leveraged in the PMR, arguments not extended by the MO cannot be leveraged in the LOR etc. While grouped/blanket extensions are fine, for example if an entire advantage/DA is dropped or extending a section of the flow like all the impacts, but for the most part if you want anything specific from these extensions you should do them in the MG/MO. This also includes new cross applications from extended arguments onto other sheets/layers of the debate as these cross-apps should have been done by the MG/MO.

- I protect against new arguments but you should call Point of Orders just in case as I am not perfect and can/may miss things.

- I have a high threshold for voting on presumption and presumption is a portion of debate I may not be the most comfortable on. I'm still willing to evaluate the layer, just don't assume that I'm following your presumption collapse 100%.

- I don't mind conditionality. That being said, my preference is towards less wide, more tall/deep debates but whatever floats your boat.

Argument Specifics:

Theory:

- have a stable and clear interp text
- read theory arguments with explicit voters
- if not explicitly articulated, I will default to drop the argument
- I default to competing interpretations
- read brightlines for reasonability
- generally friv T is fine by me but I'll be honest and say I don't find friv theory debates to be all that interesting
- I might have a lower threshold for voting on RVI's than other judges on the circuit but I am still generally unwilling to pull the trigger on them unless they're substantively developed, even if its conceded (see the point about implications/explanations above)
- if standards are not articulated in substantively different ways or are not given different implications (like terminalizing out to fairness or education) then I am unwilling to auto-vote on a conceded standard if the other similar standards have answers to them or if the other team has some amount of mitigation.

Ks:

- sequencing arguments such as prior questions or root cause claims need to be warranted and substantively explained as well as interacted with the other portions of the debate
- clear links please, not links of omission, try and make them specific to the 1ac
- I evaluate links via strength of link. comparative work on the links done by the debaters would make me really happy! be sure to weigh relinks and links against each other
- rejecting the resolution in front of me is fine as long as you defend and justify your choice
- I believe that I can follow along with most K arguments you read in front of me but don't assume I'm intimately familiar with the literature
- do not assume that because I did mostly kritikal debate in college that I am exclusively a K hack, if anything I am likely to expect a lot from K debates and may have higher evaluative thresholds for K's because that's what I am most familiar with. that being said, I love kritiks so feel free to run them in front of me.
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the alt are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- I'll evaluate/vote on severance permutations if there is substantive explanation and if there's no argument why severance is bad/unfair.

Case/CPs

- not sure if there's really such a thing as terminal defense but am still willing to buy these arguments
- prefer less generic case arguments than not (who doesn't really) but am still fine with your generic advantages and DAs.
- more specific and warranted the better
- CPs need to stable texts
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the CP are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- PICs/cheater CP's are fine with me but so is PICs bad and CP theory

Last Updated

11/10/2021

Background

Former coach at Washington HS and New Roads School. Circuit Parli debater at Prospect (2013-17). Former BP debater at USC.

General Ballot

I will vote for mostly anything as long as you explain it well. Please give content warnings pre-roadmap so that strat changes can be made accordingly. Deliberately misgendering a competitor in the round will result in an auto-loss and a not so pleasant conversation with me and a member of tournament staff. As a judge, I’ll vote for the single team that has the clearest path to the ballot. While warranted extensions can be helpful in terms of voting, I very much dislike when teams rely on "extend ___ uniqueness/argument". Chances are, there aren't as many "conceded" arguments as you think there are - don't be lazy on the line-by-line. My default on dropped arguments is that they are true and I will evaluate them as such. If you have questions on presumption, message me. I want it to be easy to vote, so do that for me. Debate is a game (unfortunately?) and as such, everyone is reading arguments in order to either increase and/or secure their chances of a W. Therefore, I find it hard to be convinced that any particular argument ought be banned or norm ought be forgone (e.g., banning the use of back files, shaming speed, disallowing Ks). That DOES NOT mean that I believe that we should abandon common human decency and practices of kindness.

Speed

I will call clear if I have to, but speed generally isn’t a problem. That being said, if your opponents are not able to compete with your speed, I expect that you will adjust accordingly. Please do not read Speed Theory if you are not going to give your opponents the opportunity to slow down (by calling 'slow' or 'clear') in previous speeches. I find it difficult to identify a bright line between conversational, fast and very fast speaking and unless you tell me where the bright line is, therefore it is incredibly difficult for me to evaluate Speed Theory. Keep tag-lines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow.

Kritiks

I’m down for them as long as they have a link and they aren't being read purely to deny your opponents equitable access to the debate space. Parli generally has larger K frameworks than policy, so I’m down with that default. Please avoid making generalizations about society. In the same vein, I'm inclined to vote against root cause claims without warrants. I think the aff has the ability to leverage the 1AC/plan as offense versus the alt. I find that the debates that are most engaging/convincing, are ones where kritikal teams engage with case and where case teams engage with the criticism.

K affs are all good in policy, but are sketch in parli unless they have a policy alt. If you feel so inclined to read a kritikal affirmative, I expect that you will disclose within 10 minutes of prep. I never read performance Ks, but am down to listen to them. I’ll flow as well as I can, but be ready to explain how you give the neg ground. Very low threshold on offense against truth testing framework. The lit-bases that I am reasonably well-read on include cap, whiteness, neolib, fem and setcol.

Framework debates are my jam.

I am a firm believer that good case/theory debates are more valuable than bad K debates so don't be cheaty just because you have a backfile.

DAs/CP

Make sure to explain how the CP functions in the 1NC. I am not a stickler on CPs being ME so have fun with that. If you choose to read a perm (in most cases, you should), I'd prefer you read a perm text and an explanation for how the permutation has solvency/functions. "Perm, do both" is not a perm text. I am very unlikely to vote on a Delay CP because I have yet to hear a good justification for why delay resolves the harms in squo better than the plan and doesn't bite the DA(s).

Theory

Default to competing interps and no RVIs, and theory coming first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but if it is there, point it out and your speaks will go up. If you are going for theory, you better actually go for it. I probably won’t vote on it if it is 30 seconds in the 2NR/AR. That being said, I really don't expect you to go for every theory arg you read. High threshold for PICs bad and Condo bad. I will not vote for Ks Bad if it is used as an out from actually engaging with critical positions. I also find that generalizing that all Ks are bad does very little to improve the quality of the debate space. If you choose to read a generalized Ks Bar argument, I will need warranting for why the argument you are attempting to mitigate is specifically exclusionary to your team in the round.

Tricks

I'm going to be completely honest and say that tricks go completely over my head. That's not to say they are bad arguments or ineffective but rather that they are often inadequately explained and I fail to find a way to evaluate how they interact with other args on the flow. Riley Shahar is a much better judge for such args.

Weighing

Generally default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise. Weighing is your job, not mine. I need clear impact scenarios to vote for an argument.

Speaker Points -- I will vote on 30 speaks theory

25 - Please take a moment to rethink what you are about to say (P.S stop being racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc)

...

28~28.4 - Some strategic errors but they weren't devastating

28.5~28.9 - Meh, average

29~29.3 - Definitely know what you're doing

29.4~29.9 - Your round vision and strategy was on point

30 - WOOO I SPY A WINNER

General School-Wide Conflicts

New Roads, Prospect, Washington

Miscellaneous

Off-time road maps PLEASE.

Tag-teaming is all good, but don’t be 'that kid' who tag teams the whole time. I'll be rather disgruntled and take it out on your speaks.

Speaks are more based on strategy than anything else. I think that speaker points are pretty bogus considering that style preferences are quite subjective.

Shadow extensions are awful.

I will more than likely be okay with my RFD being recorded for learning purposes. It's generally a more efficient alternative to repeating portions that you didn't manage to write down on your flow. Please ask before you record, I don't want being "on record" to deter other debaters from asking questions.

**Feel free to email with any questions - keskar@usc.edu

or FB message me

There are a few things that I think are really important –

First is signposting. Slow down on your tags! Since I’m probably not looking at your speech doc it’s important for you to make the argument that your evidence is making clear so that I can flow it. If I can't flow it I can't evaluate it, so being unclear/not signposting is a good way to accidentally lose my ballot.

Second is clarity – this is pretty self-explanatory, but I like listening to debates that I can understand. If I can’t understand you, I will say clear and your speaks will probably suffer.

You also need to extend arguments - if you forget to extend case in the 2AC and the neg come up in the block and says "they don't extend case you vote neg" that's pretty easy for me. I think that shadow extensions are bad, but if you don't call the other team out on it I will let it go. The onus is on you as debaters to make sure that the other team isn't being sheisty.

KRITIKS – I am not super familiar with high theory arguments. The most important thing for me when reading, answering and judging kritiks is that the debaters understand the K and that they explain it in a way that I can understand. That being said, I won’t intervene against a K that I don’t understand if it goes completely conceded or something drastic like that happens. Permutations are probably the smartest strategy for the aff against the kritik. I am most familiar with Orientalism, Cap, Foucault, and Security.

FRAMEWORK - I think that framework is a very powerful tool for the neg, but the way a lot of teams handle it opens it to a very real exclusion disad from the affirmative. In general I think that trying to exclude performative/narrative affirmatives is probably bad. those things matter a lot in debate and are important, but I'm not opposed to the idea that framework can function as an additive requirement.

T – I default to competing interpretations, however I think even if aff doesn't come up with a counter-interpretation explicitly, they still have an implicit counter-interpretation which is just the opposite of the interpretation. Thus if there are offensive reasons why the interp is bad I won't vote for it. I also won't vote on blippy T arguments that are unsubstantiated.

DISADS - have a specific link please for the love of god. If you read a card about NSA surveillance being key to stopping terrorism against an ICE aff you have a lower chance of winning my ballot than your impact actually being triggered. Other than that just weigh your impacts.

IMPACT CALCULUS - DO THIS. PLEASE. I tend to lean more towards evaluating probability first, but if you can make a good case for evaluating anything else first i'll be open to it because it's policy debate. Impact framing definitely affects my decision so please include framing as often and soon as possible!

In general I’m open to most arguments, I just think that one of the most important skills that debate has to offer is the ability to explain complicated arguments. If you don’t explain something well enough, you’ll have an uphill battle getting me to vote on it.

I won't vote on blippy/unwarranted/untrue args. For example if aff says we meet for xyz untrue reason and neg drops it, I still wouldn't buy the we meet arg. I also prefer not voting on gimmicks/trick theory. I am usually quite skeptical of frivolous theory. If you are going to go for theory, go all in with a collapse.

My ideal form of a debate is a smart, substantiated case debate! However please read whichever arguments you like and I will do my best to evaluate them as objectively as possible. Don't be mean to the other debaters or I will drop speaks. Otherwise, have fun!

take notes on RFDs its probably smart

She/Her

If you know you know.

2/18/24 Update - Final Update:

Abstractly T-FW is true, but concretely K Affs still have the ability to win these debates because 95% of all topics are reactionary. In other words, I'm a T hack but I'll vote for the K Aff if you beat T.

*Updated for TOC 2023:

Quick reference for prefs based on your strategy if you don't read anything: Case (1), K(2), Theory/FW(1), Phil(3), Tricks(4), Heg lol (1)

Background: Debated hs parli for 4 years with Los Altos. Last debated in 2019. I haven't done anything related to debate for a few yrs now (other than periodic judging) so I won't be well versed with whatever's popular - be clear and explain.

In general, I will evaluate almost every position and be willing to vote on it, so just debate what you want and make sure it's well articulated. If you think you have an interesting argument that will make the round fun, read it! I debated with Shirley Cheng for the most formative parts of my time in debate, so her paradigm pretty much lines up with how I view things: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=24626

My method for evaluating rounds is very similar to the paradigm above so this is copy pasted from there: for me defensive responses on an arg function as mitigation to the risk of the arg happening (ie I'll be more skeptical of the arg and I will evaluate this as the arg having very minimal risk of happening. Depending on how good the defense is, the risk will differ of course, but it's rare that I will believe an arg has 100% chance of not happening unless the other team straight up concedes it. Because this is how I evaluate args, weighing is super super super important)

Be accessible or I won't be against intervening

Some other notes:

General:

Call point of orders, but I'll try to protect.

Signpost, slow on tags, repeat interps.

New in the block means I give the aff a lot of credence in answering it - that being said, 2a theory will probably be held to a higher threshold in terms of accessing golden turns

Claims require warrants. Warrants require explanations. I might be less willing to vote solely on blip claims/tricks without warrants and explanations if I can vote elsewhere.

Add sequencing questions in rebuttals and be sure to collapse. Super strategic and makes my evaluation a lot more straightforward. You rebuttal should be my RFD + any preempts.

Case:

I essentially only read case in hs. It would help to have a strategic uniqueness and a good link/internal link scenario. Impacts should still be fully impacted out. Ex: better economy means very little to me while extinction means a lot.

While I will default magnitude absent any weighing, I tend to prefer probability weighing if it's given to me. For me, that comes from the link debate. Link defense can serve as mitigation of the probability of an argument as stated above. Explain how different arguments interact with the links and what that means for my evaluation. Flag specific things in the last speeches especially.

Case turns only would be interesting to watch.

Theory:

Down for theory debates

I could be convinced that pics, condo, etc are good or bad.

Nebel T against super small squarely affs would be a fun strategy to watch if you can properly explain it.

Will default competing interpretations

Seems recently in parli, there's been a lot of 2a theory and even 2n theory :// In that case, please layer and order - otherwise it's an even larger mess.

What if all T interps were read as a POI in the 1A?

Split the ballot theory is cool if you both need a 1-1 split at TOC

Ks:

I was not a K debater, so I don't have much background in the lit. I was mostly around methodology Ks, but you can read whatever you want. Regardless of what you read, still make sure explanations are clear and explain jargon.

If you read a K from a backfile and don't have any idea what it says, it will be clear, and I will find it really easy to drop you.

I think nontopical Aff Ks specifically should be disclosed. If they aren't, I'm sympathetic to disclosure arguments and probably have a lower bar for T or other theory arguments. Note this is distinct and doesn't apply to defending the topic and deriving critical impacts + framing. In general, the further you are from defending the topic, the more sympathetic I am to t-fw.

Assume I haven’t heard of your lit.

1. The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, and long COVID destroys lives. I will be wearing a mask, and I beg you to do the same if you are in a room where I am judging—both to protect all of us from the continuing pandemic, and because I am particularly at risk due to my own health conditions. I will try to have high-quality masks available to share; if you don't have a mask, I will assume that you were unable to access one, and will not ask further questions beyond a quick request. However, I will have trouble believing critical debate arguments that come from people who are not masked, because it seems to represent a lack of interest in pursuing true community care and justice. I don't know how that fits into a meaningful line-by-line evaluation, but I know that I will be unable to stop myself from being distracted from the round. If that causes issues for you, of course, don't pref me highly!
2. You should be aware that I am still recovering from a series of concussions that mean my ability to follow rapid arguments may be limited. I will tell you if I need you to slow or speak more clearly. Fine with all types of argumentation still, it's just a speed issue. That means I may also need extra time moving between arguments/papers.
3. For a dictionary of terms used in my paradigm (or otherwise common in parli), click here. I recently edited this paradigm to better reflect my current thoughts on debate (mainly the essay on pedagogy, but some other minor alterations throughout), so you may want to look through if you haven't in a while.
4. Take care, all. Tough times.

TL;DR: Call the Point of Order, use weighing and framing throughout, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I won't shake your hands, but sending you lots of good luck and vibes for good rounds through the ether!

Background and Trivia

I did high school parli, then NPDA, APDA, BP, and NFA-LD in college; I've coached parli at Mountain View-Los Altos since 2016. My opinions on debate have perhaps been most shaped by partners—James Gooler-Rogers, Steven Herman, various Stanford folks—as well as my former students and/or fellow coaches at MVLA—particularly William Zeng, Shirley Cheng, Riley Shahar, Alden O'Rafferty, and Luke DiMartino. More recent people who *may* evaluate similarly to me include Henry Shi, Keira Chatwin, Rhea Jain,Renée Diop, and Maya Yung.

I've squirreled (was the 1 of a 2-1 decision) twice—once was in 2016 with two parent judges who either voted on style or didn't explain their decisions (it's been a while! I can't quite remember); the other was at NorCal Champs 2021, I believe because I tend to be fairly strict about granting credence to claims only if they are sufficiently warranted logically, and my brightline for evaluation differed from the brightlines of the other judges for determining that. There was one more time at a recent tournament, but I have forgotten it, sorry!

Most Important

• An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication; blips without meaning won't win you the round. Please, if you do nothing else, justify your arguments: every claim should have a warrant, and every claim should have an impact. The questions I've ended up asking myself (and the debaters) in nearly every round I've judged over the past ~7 years are: Why do I care about that? What is the implication of that? How do these arguments interact? Save us all some heartache and answer those questions yourself during prep time and before your rebuttal speeches.

• In other words—If there is no justification for a claim, the claim does not exist, or at best is downgraded to barely there. I think the most clear distinction between my way of evaluating arguments/avoiding intervention and some other judges' style of doing so is that I default to assuming nothing is true, and require justification to believe anything, whereas some judges default to assuming that every claim is true unless it is disproven.

• Debate should be respectful, educational, and kind. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that. Be good to each other.

• Fine with kritiks, theory, and any counterplans, and fine to arguments against them as well. I don't think arguments automatically must be prioritized over other arguments (via layers), i.e. you need to explain and warrant why theory should be evaluated prior to a kritik for it to do so. If I have to make these decisions myself, in the absence of arguments, you may not like what I come up with! Generally, I think that I probably have to understand something like an epistemological claim (pre-fiat arguments) before I can evaluate a policy debate, but that might not always be the case depending on specific arguments made in round.

• I don't care if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should be evaluated before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget/don't know the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".

• Speaking during your partner's speech is fine, so long as the current speaker repeats anything said—I will only flow the current speaker. If you frequently interrupt your partner without being asked (puppeting), I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding.

• Content warnings are good (link).

• Call the Point of Order.

Pedagogy, or, why are we here? (UPDATED: 3/20/2024)

Debate can be a game, and a fun one at that, but it is not just a game to me—debate is a locus of interrogation, and a place where dominant ideologies can be held up and challenged. At its best, debate is a place where we can learn to speak, advocate, and grow as critical thinkers, participants in political processes, or members of movements organizing towards justice. Some debaters become policymakers, but every debater becomes a member of a society full of structural violence with the capacity to contribute to, or work against, the structures that enable harm.

With that in mind, a few notes (or, sorry, an essay) to consider the pedagogical nature of this space. Within the round, I will not tolerate —phobias, —isms, or misgendering/deadnaming in any debate space that I am a part of. If these things happen, I will dramatically reduce your speaks, and we will talk about it after round, or I will reach out to a coach. I will never vote on arguments that are implicitly harmful (e.g. eugenicist, racist, transphobic) and there is no amount of warranting that can convince me to do so. I am aware that some judges on this circuit intervene against technical arguments like criticism (kritiks) or theory because they believe that technical teams exclude non-technical teams from competition. I believe that technical arguments are a form of inclusion that allow people who have historically been marginalized in debate settings and beyond to engage in rounds in ways that non-technical debate prevents. This means that while I am happy to hear a "lay" round of policy discussion or a values- or principles-based debate, I will always deeply value technical debate education and critical arguments.

However, I know that technical debate can be intimidating: one of the only remaining videos of my debating is NPDI finals, 2014 (ten years ago, can you believe it?)—in which I argued shakily against a kritik at the fastest speed I could and almost fainted after. I learned what kritiks were just two days before that round. For the rest of my high school debate career, I learned about kritiks to beat them, because technical arguments intimidated me. Then, I went to a community college to compete in NPDA, and learned that kritiks are not something to be feared, but just another argument to engage with—one which can provide us with even greater education about the world that we live in and the ways that it harms people, than repeating the same tired arguments about minor reforms that can attempt to solve some minute portion of structural problems.

As someone who works in policy now, I think that the skills we learn from policy rounds are invaluable, but flawed. Uniqueness-link-impact structures are the way that policy analysis works in real life, too, as they correlate to harms, solvency, and implications. Analysis more common in APDA and BP, like incentives or actor analysis, is also pedagogically useful for policy. However, these structures are outdated: working in policy now, I know that one of the most important things we can learn to do is incorporate analysis of racial and other forms of equity into every step of our policy analysis, because the absence of this affirmative effort results in the same inequity and injustice that is embedded in every stage of our political and social systems.

I do not care if that analysis takes the form of structured criticism (kritik), framing arguments, or more unstructured principled argumentation, but I hope that anyone who happens to read this considers ways to incorporate analysis of racial, class, gender, ability, and other inequities into their rounds.

Finally—as a coach who views this activity as a pedagogical one, the most important thing to me is that debaters enter rounds willing to engage with arguments, and exit them having learned something about another perspective on an issue. I am still here to judge and coach, after all these years, because I enjoy being a part of the process of helping people learn how to effectively use their voices in meaningful ways by understanding what is persuasive and what is not.

So, please—be open-minded. If you fear kritiks because they confuse you, let that turn you to curiosity instead of hate. Recognize that kritiks are often a tool by which those of us who are marginalized by this community can, for a few moments, reclaim space, find belonging, and learn about ourselves and others. Ask yourself deeply why it is that you are unwilling to question the structures that govern debate and the world. Do you benefit from them? Do we all? Can't we all learn to think about them too?

Simultaneously, debate's educational value relies on inclusivity—if you run kritiks alongside theory and tricks at top speed on teams that are not comfortable with these things, what are you running the kritik for? How is that an effective form of education? Why do that, when you could simply run a kritik at an understandable speed? In other words—if you read kritiks exclusively to win, and intend to do so by confusing your opponents, I will be a very sad judge at the end of the round (and sad judges are more likely to see more paths to voting against you, of course).

As a whole, then, I am a strange hybrid product of my peculiar debate education. I believe that the best form of parli is somewhere between APDA Motions and national circuit NPDA. This means the rounds I value most are conversational-fast, full of logic without blipped/unsupported claims, use theory arguments when needed to check abuse, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without the structure of traditional criticism.

Case

• Rebuttals should primarily consist of weighing between arguments. This does not mean methodically evaluating each argument through probability, timeframe, AND magnitude, but telling a comprehensive story as to how your arguments win the round.

• Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run cases when they don't apply.

• (UPDATED 11/4/21) I tend to be cautious about the probability of scenarios. This means that I prefer to not intervene or insert my own assumptions about how your link chains connect—if they are not clear, or if they do not connect clearly, I may end up disregarding your arguments. I tend to have a higher threshold on this than most judges on this circuit, courtesy of my APDA/BP roots, so please do not leave gaps!

• Default weighing is silly on principle: I'm not likely to vote for a high-magnitude scenario that has zero chance of happening unless you have specific framing arguments on why I should do so, but if you make the arguments, I'll vote on them. Risk calculus is probability x magnitude mediated by timeframe, so just do good analysis.

• Presumption flows the direction of least change. This means that I presume neg if there is no CP, and aff if there is. I am certainly open to arguments about how presumption should go — it's your round — but I will only presume if I really, truly have to (and if the presumption claims are actually warranted). If you don't have warrants or don't sufficiently compare impacts, I'll spend 5 minutes looking for the winner and, failing that, vote on presumption.

• Fine with perms that add new things (intrinsic) or remove parts of your case (severance) if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.

• I love deep case debates. In NPDA I enjoyed reading single position cases, whether a kritik read alone or a disadvantage or advantage. These debates are some of the most educational, and will often result in high speaks. I am also a bif fan of critical framing on ads/disads.

• Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.

Theory (UPDATED 11/4/21)

• I default to competing interpretations—In theory rounds, I prefer to evaluate the argument by determining which side has the best interpretation of what debate should be, based on the offense and defense within the standards debate.

• I am open to the argument that I should be reasonable instead, but I believe that reasonability requires a clear brightline (e.g. must win every standard); otherwise, I will interpret reasonability to mean "what Sierra thinks is reasonable" and intervene wholeheartedly.

• I view we meets as something like terminal defense against an interpretation—I think that if I am evaluating based on proven abuse, and the interpretation is met by the opposing team, there is no harm done/no fairness and education lost and thus theory goes away. However, if I am evaluating based on potential abuse, I think that the we meet might not matter? (As you can see, I'm currently conflicted on how to evaluate this—if you want to make arguments that even if the interp is met theory is still a question of which team has the better interpretation for debate as a whole (e.g. based solely on potential abuse), I'm open to that too!

• Weighing and internal link analysis are the most important part of theory debates—I do not want to intervene to decide which standards I believe are more important than which counterstandards, etc. Please don't make me!

• Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased—and well-adapted to the round at hand. In other words, as someone who wrote a university thesis on literary analysis, interp flaws are a big deal to me.

• No need for articulated abuse—if your opponents skew you out of your prep time, do what you can to make up new arguments in round, and go hard for theory. Being able to throw out an entire case and figure out a new strategy in the 1NC? Brilliant. High speaks.

• (UPDATED 5/6/22) Frivolous theory is technically fine, because it's your round, but I won't be thrilled, you know? It gets boring. However—I am very open to theory arguments based on pointing out flaws in a plan text. Plan flaws, like interp flaws, are a big deal to me.

• The trend of constant uplayering seems tedious to me. I would much rather watch a standards debate between two interesting interpretations than a more meta shell without engagement. Your round, but just saying.

Kritiks + Tech

General:

• Kritiks are great when well-run. To keep them that way, please run arguments you personally understand or are seriously trying to understand, rather than shells that you borrowed frantically from elder teammates because you saw your judge is down for them.

• Originality: I most highly value/will give the highest speaks for original criticism—in other words, kritiks that combine theories in a reasonable way or produce new types of knowledge, particularly in ways that are not often represented in parli.

• Rejecting the res (UPDATED 10/9/2021): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the argument is these days. Generally safer to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright, unless the resolution itself is flawed, or you have solid indicts of framework prepared. However, if you're ready for it, go for it. Good K vs K debates are my favorite type of debate entirely.

• Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.

• On identity (UPDATED 10/15/2020): All criticism is tied in some way to identity, whether because we make arguments based on the understanding of the world that our subject position allows us, or because our arguments explicitly reference our experiences. I used to ask debaters to not make arguments based on their identities: this is a position that I now believe is impossible. What we should not do, though, is make assumptions about other people's identities—do not assume that someone responding to a K does not have their own ties to that criticism, and do not assume that someone running a K roots it, nor does not root it, in their identity. We are each of us the product of both visible and invisible experiences—please don't impose your assumptions on others. I will not police your choices; just be mindful of the fraught nature of the debate space.

Literature familiarity: In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me:

• Relatively high familiarity (have studied relatively intensively; familiar with a range of authors, articles, and books): queer theory, disability theory, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives, critical legal theory (e.g. "human rights"), decolonization and "post" colonial studies

• Medium familiarity (have read at least a few foundational books/articles): Afrofuturism, securitization, settler-colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, biopower, security, anti-neoliberalism, transfeminism, basics of psychoanalysis from Freud

• I will be sad and/or disappointed if you read this: most postmodern things that are hard to understand, Lacan, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, any theory rooted in racism, anything that is trans exclusionary.

• I'm still not sure what I think of including a list of authors I'm familiar with, but I think on balance that it is preferable to make this explicit rather than having it in my head and having some teams on the circuit be aware of my interests when other teams are unaware. Don't ever assume someone knows your specific theory or author. Familiarity does not mean I'll vote for it.

Tricksy things

• Conditionality: debates that have collapsed out of arguments you aren't going to win are good debates. If it hurts your ability to participate in the round, run theory.

• Speed: Don’t spread your opponents out of the round. Period. If your opponents ask you to clear or slow, please do so or risk substantial speaker point losses. I've actually found I have difficulty following fast rounds online; I think I'm reasonably comfortable at top high school speeds but maybe not top college speeds. Often the problem is coherency/clarity and people not slowing between arguments—if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.

• On philosophical tricks: I'll be honest: I don't understand many of the philosophical arguments/tricks that are likely to be at this tournament (dammit Jim, I was an English major not a philosophy major!) I will reiterate with this in mind, then, that I will not vote for your blips without warrants, and will not vote for arguments I don't understand. Convince me at the level of your novices.

Points of Order

• I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the Point of Order if it's on the edge. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the Point of Order to avoid intervening. After ~2 POOs, I'll just be extremely cautious for the rest of the speech.

Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)

25-26: Offensive, disrespecting partner/other debaters, etc.
26-27: Just not quite a sufficient speech— missing a lot of the necessary components.
27-28: Some missing fundamentals (eg poorly chosen/structured arguments, unclear logic chains).
28-28.5: Average— not very strategic, but has the basics down. Around top half of the field.
28.5-29: Decent warranting, sufficient impact calculus, perhaps lacking strategy. Deserve to break.
29-29.5: Clearly warranted arguments, weighable impacts, good strategy, deserve to break to late elims.
29.5-29.8: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
29.9-30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, top speaker, TOC, etc (have never given; have known every TOC top speaker for years; can't think of a round where I would ever give this to any of them)

I don't care if you talk pretty, stutter, or have long terrified pauses in your speech: I vote on the arguments.

This paradigm is long. I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge, or a given format. I encourage other judges, NPDA and APDA and BP alike, to do the same.

I am currently the Director of Forensics for Bruins@NPDA, UCLA's student-tun NPDA debate team. I competed in college parli for two years and last year got 3rd at the National Round Robbin. I competed in CX debate and Congress in high school and made it to state for both events. I have experience judging CX, LD, Parli, Extemp, and Congress.

Email: nikanik@g.ucla.edu

Judging philosophy for CX, LD, and Parli:

-I am a flow judge and will vote on any argument that is conceded in a round if it has: Clear framing, warrant, and impact weighing.

-I think conditionality is good but will vote on Condo bad if it has won the theory debate

-Feel free to read a topical aff or a Kritikal affirmative( I have experience with both and would prefer you do the style of debate that you are most comfortable in)

-I will assign speaker points based on technical skills. I will lower your speaker points if you are rude to your opponent and drop you if you are racists, ableist, etc.

-The theory is always fun! I am cool with the 2AC theory but will not vote on 2NR or 2AR theory. Make sure it has a clear interpretation, violation, standards, and voters for me to vote on

-I do not accept shadow extensions; if you want to collapse to an argument in the 1AR/2AR, it must be in the 2AC. No new arguments in the rebuttals, please.

-Make sure you have warrants and impact weighting in the rebuttals!

Judging philosophy for speech/congress:

-I highly value sources and warrant analysis

-A clear opening with an organization is always helpful

-I would rather see a small speech with much detail and sources, than a long speech with little to no sources

Welcome! I hope your soul is doing well! Debate is a beautiful thing! I'm so excited to hear all the cool things you come up with!

MOST IMPORTANT: this is high school debate (maybe middle school). your wins and losses do not matter. the only thing that matters is learning and enjoying yourself. so be RESPECTFUL. don't be exclusionary. learn as much as you can. have fun!!!!

TLDR: weigh, good strategy, run what you want, be inclusive, be kind

Me: 4 years of HS parli for Bishop O'Dowd (NPDI& stanford sems, TOC octos), on my 5th year of coaching/teaching (camp, MVLA, Menlo School), considered myself a flay (comfortable w parents and experienced judges) debater. Medium-flow judge? (I guess you can decide that for yourself)

Case (Contentions, a plan, a counter plan... not Kritiks or Theory): I love a good case debate. your links are prob the weakest part of your case, so bolster those a bunch. terminalize impacts (why do I care about the economy or climate change? prob bc they relate to death and dehumanization). Ok with tricky CPs if you know your opponents and know they can engage, be prepared for the theory debate. If you don't weigh your impacts (probability, timeframe, magnitude, reversibility) I will cry. and I'm an ugly crier

Theory (what you run to argue about the rules of debate, trying to stop debaters from being unfair in rounds... or to be silly) : i love theory debates. If you're running theory and the other team doesn't know what theory is, EXPLAIN IT!! I love when teams help other teams learn!

Ks (Kritiks!): I am in no way a K debater's dream judge, but I do love hearing them! I 200% have not read your lit, so EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. If your opponent is confused you better be answering a bunch of questions. try to make your K accessible.

Tricks: If a 5 year old can't understand your argument, I won't either. WTF is a grain of sand. I don't know. People have spent hours trying to explain this stuff to me and I STILL don't get it, so you prob won't be able to make it make sense in 8 mins. But good luck, you do you

Style: do whatever makes you most comfortable. stand up, sit down, do a little dance, take your shoes off. I don't care. My speaks are on strategic moves, fun arguments (I like some passion too). Strategy is VERY important and is probably the fastest way to my ballot- by the 2nd constructive, you should have a clear story/ start weighing. PLEASE signpost (number things, tell me when you're moving on to the next advantage). I don't go below 28 unless you intentionally spread someone out of the round or say something offensive. I <3 jokes

Speed: Medium speed is fine. Don't spread (when ppl talk SUPER fast), but you can talk pretty fast. If I can't understand you I will yell clear/slow and if you don't I will put my pen down/ stop typing. Go at a speed that makes the round accessible to everyone (even if that's slower than your ideal). If someone yells slow and you don't slow down I will be very annoyed. On that note- advocate for yourself! ask your opponents to slow down! I vote very quickly on justified speed theory (what you run when someone has spoken so quickly that you're shut out of the round).

Call the POO! (I will do my best to protect on my own but if it's sketchy I prefer you call it)

If you have debate anxiety or are stressed, LET ME KNOW! I've been there! the panic attacks? Nausea? want to cry? You're still an amazing debater (I was too!). we can spend a min or two before the round talking about why learning is most important, maybe doing some breathing, mini dance party if that will help you. You deserve to be in this round as much as anyone else does!

I AM SO GLAD YOU ARE HERE! I AM SO GLAD YOU DO DEBATE!! YOU'RE GONNA DO GREAT AND LEARN SO MUCH!!

in the words of the wonderful Riley Shahar -"If the round, or this space, is inaccessible for you for any reason at any point, please let me know and I will do whatever possible to help."

I tried my best to explain everything, but if you don't know one of the terms in this paradigm, shoot me an email! Parli jargon is weird and I know it can feel hard to ask what things mean! RFD? POI? RVI? MOI? TTYLXOX? what's with all these acronyms?!? (cc your partner or another adult and include a link to your favorite cat video)! aldenor@stanford.edu

I don't really judge anymore. If you are a debater and want to see my paradigm for some reason, email me firstname dot lastname at gmail.

World Schools note for Cal -First time judging this - still figuring out the point system & norms so to be as fair as possible here's how I find myself voting so far:

• winning team will be the team who had better argumentation / framing. Don't use this as an excuse to do things that would not be in the norms of world schools tho, like excessive speed / more theoretical stuff / anything exclusionary to teams that aren't prepared for it. Also since no low point wins, a killer reply speech can't save 3 bad constructives. If it's close enough though, the team who I think won on paper will win on tabroom. Surprising myself with who the winner is by just adding up the points speech by speech made me too sad.
• High style points = good sign posting, clear extensions, creative arguments, confident responses to POIs. I don't care as much that a speech is perfectly polished so much as that it is creative and effective and doesn't waste time. To honor the vibes of WSD, if you're confident / funny, your score will be higher. If you're rude / make excessive POIs / read word for word off a paper, your score will be lower. That being said, your performative ability will most likely not be what determines the round for me.
• High content points = I like the stuff you put on the paper. A good mix of defensive and offensive responses (not just cross applications of your own case). Having flushed out substantives (rather than blips that come out in later speeches). Creative arguments that aren't all US-centric. Stats aren't as important in world schools as clear logic, so make sure everything has a claim & reasoning & impact of some sort.
• Strategy points = Good extensions, good framing, good time management, and consistency across each speech on your team.
• IMO, POIs are more for you than for me. Get clarification on their case / get the other side to say something you can use against them / catch them in a double bind to use later. I'm probably not going to flow anything new from a POI unless you bring it up in a speech later and tell me why it matters. Making them probably won't impact your score much unless they're really good or really bad.

TLDR as of Feb '24: Will listen to almost anything, preference for case since I'm much better at judging it (imo), and my ability to comprehend speed is not great these days and I for whatever reason am incapable of flowing on a computer so if you go too fast for me to be able to actually pen to paper write it down I may miss stuff. Wouldn't object to being classified more as flay than flow at this point, but a unique / interesting round is better than a boring / recycled round - take that however you want. And full disclosure idek what a trick is unless it's that grains of sand stuff - that I definitely do not like pls I will have flashbacks to the worst rounds I ever debated lol

- debated in high school parliamentary debate for four years (2015-2019) for Campolindo and Mountain View / Los Altos (won a few things, went to TOC x3, but also it's been a long time and the circuit has def changed)

- coached PF for a few years and a lil bit of parli

For Parli

For the record, I will in fact listen to and vote on anything you read so long as it's done well, below are my preferences but of course they are not hard and fast rules; you do you - it's your round not mine.

- I haven’t competed in years and mostly coached slower events such as PF, so spreading super fast is probably not in your best interest, and in a limited prep event like parli with 8 min for a constructive if you're saying the right things you probably don't need to go egregiously fast anyway.

- I prefer the structure of case debate solely because I'm better at judging it - if you feel like going for critical impacts that is fine but I would much rather hear a well warranted critical advantage or disadvantage than an over rehearsed and framework heavy kritik

- If you do decide to read a K I won't hate you but here's my disclaimer: I did not read Ks except like 4 times ever. I studied philosophy in college so I'm relatively familiar w most stock K theory & I read some satirical stuff / Baudrillard. But also I hate misinterpretations / butchering of philosophy to better suit your case so if you read a K it better be good. And regardless of my knowledge if you read a K still assume I do not understand, and be as clear as possible. While I'll do my best to place it in the context of the round reading a K in general means there is a marginally higher chance I will make what more k-oriented judges would consider the wrong decision. So bear that in mind.

- if reading more complex or identity related kritiks be especially sure you actually understand what you are talking about and the implications behind it. I'll probably hold you to a higher standard of explanation on these

- I don't like frivolous theory so if you're reading it at least make it ridiculous and fun lol. Theory is important when an action a team has taken has changed the course of the round. Theory is less important when the shell itself is what changes the round. But I guess at a certain point it becomes satire and then it loops back to maybe being important again?

- Justify your impact framing. Magnitude is probably overrated. What would make the world actually better is if people thought about probable and structural impacts of their actions. I'll definitely vote on magnitude if given reason to though.

For PF

- I don't really flow cross cause I'm not abt that many columns on my flow but I promise I'll listen :) Bring up any important cross developments in a speech as well and I'll definitely flow it then

- Sticky defense (unless you give me a reason otherwise) so long as you mention it in FF, so you can ignore through summary if conceded

- If you plan on going fast to the point where you go beyond the average person's flowing capabilities, you should email me & your opponents your evidence. But also I'm fine with more speed in PF because a 4 minute constructive just seems so short to the Parli side of me

- not a fan of paraphrasing & if you do make sure citations are clear

- if you are reading norm-setting theoretical arguments or critical identity args look to my parli notes

FOR GGI 2021

I haven't heard or flowed speed in a while, and also haven't been super involved in debate lately, so I will probably have trouble flowing top-speed. Content preferences are generally unchanged, with the exception that I now know even less about both current events and critical literature. My general inclination as a judge is to take whatever is said in-round at face value (e.g. I won't fact check warrants or scrutinize textually flawed interps unless told to do so).

Most of the below paradigm was written when I was still a competitor. Looking back, I've found that the actual process I use when judging rounds is frankly very intuition-based and not always the most technical, especially when it comes to warrants and POIs. At the end of the day, I think debate is just competitive storytelling. And personally, I prefer Ancient Aliens to C-SPAN.

OLD PARADIGM (mostly still applies)

TL;DR: Go nuts (but please don't be rude/horrible to your opponents).

The round is yours. I prefer a well-executed strategy more than anything else. For some background, I competed in NPDA at Berkeley for three years (graduated in 2020). As a competitor, the arguments I most commonly collapsed to were Theory, Buddhism, Anthro, Politics, and Dedev.

Here are some general thoughts/preferences:

Case/Disads: I love to see good case debate. I'm not particularly well versed in what's going on in the world, so if the case debate is getting messy then some top-level overviews and explanation are probably helpful. I don't care if you read generics. I like good politics debates.

Counterplans: I have no preferences on issues like conditionality, PICs, delay, consult, negative fiat, etc.. I'll vote for it if I think you're winning it, and I'll vote for them if I think they're winning a theoretical objection. By default, I assume negative advocacies are conditional.

Kritiks: If you're reading something complicated, overviews/explanation are super appreciated. Words like ontology, epistemology, etc. don't mean that much to me in a vacuum, so it's good to read implications to arguments when extending them. K affs are fine, I don't have much attachment to the topic (although I'm happy to vote on framework-T too if won).

Theory: I think it can be a strategic tool in addition to a check on abuse. I default to competing interpretations and drop the team. Will evaluate an RVI if you read a justification. Proven abuse is unnecessary, but you can make arguments why it should be necessary and I'll listen to them. If reasonability doesn't have a brightline or some explanation of what it means to be reasonable, then I'll just disregard it.

Presumption/tricks: I believe in terminal defense. By default, I think presumption goes neg. In general, I don't mind voting on tricksy arguments as long as they're sufficiently explained when gone for.

Point of orders: Feel free to call them. I'll try and protect, but I think they're still good to call just in case I'm missing something. I will also try to protect from shadow-extensions.

Out-of-round stuff: I'm pretty sympathetic towards arguments calling for content/trigger warnings before the round.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts.

Background: 4 years of HS parli for Campolindo with this one

Theory

- Default to evaluating this layer first, but if there’s a K then it’s up to the debaters to resolve the sequencing question

- Default to competing interps > reasonability, but I’ll buy args otherwise

- Provide a brightline for reasonability

- It's not what you did, it's what you justify (I will vote on potential abuse)

- Default drop the team, but I’ll buy args otherwise

- High threshold for RVIs

- Fine with friv t

Case

- I prefer case debate

- Generic args are fine, but adapt them to be specific to each round/res. Warrant your claims

- Please read uniqueness in the right direction

- Condo is fine, but condo bad is also fine

- Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy

- Terminalize your impacts, otherwise I can’t evaluate them. Also weigh

Kritik

- Unfamiliar with most lit bases tbh, so don’t assume I’ll fill in any blanks for you

- Things I’ve run: cap, biopower, fem

- Please engage with the aff/the resolution

- K affs are fine, but I’ll also vote on framework T

Other

- Given competing claims that run in parallel with no explicit comparison, I will probably end up either intervening or disregarding both claims. Don’t let this happen

- I prefer the offense-defense model of debate because that’s what I’m most familiar with. Not the best at evaluating truth-testing

- Speed is fine, i’ll clear you if you’re too fast

- Will try to protect, but still call the poo. No shadow extensions

- Presumption flows neg unless the neg reads an advocacy, in which case I’ll presume aff; however, I have a high threshold for voting on presumption

- Tag teaming is fine, but I'll only flow what the speaker says

- I don't believe in grace periods. Sit down when your time is up

Debate how you want to debate, and I will evaluate your arguments to the best of my ability. Most important: have fun.