Last Update: January 7, 2022

I competed in various forms of debate for five years on the college level however, I primarily competed in NPDA and LD Debate. I competed for Moorpark College (more traditional debate) and Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley (Nat circuit tech debate). At the 2021 NPDA I got to Semis and NPTE I got fifth in season-long rankings and fifth at the NPTE itself. I am ecstatic to see the future generation of debaters compete as a judge with that being said let’s get onto my judging philosophy which is probably the only thing you care about and are reading this for.

TLDR: As the great, powerful, wise debater Brian Yang once said "Go Nuts!" to be a bit more specific my paradigm is heavily influenced by Trevor Greenan, Brian Yang, Tom Kadie, Jessica Jung, and Ryan Rashid so I would expect paradigm similar to them. In order of probably what I am probably best/most experienced judging Theory/Tricks/Larp/K 1, Phil 2 (just not as experienced although I did debate it a bit and learned from Phil debaters so I understand it and can judge it pretty competently) (Advice: For Parli Paradigm questions look to sections 1-4 for evidence debate gloss over section 1 real quick only a few things there matter then look to sections 2-5, for extra salt, info, and general advice include 6,7) bold/highlighted text is generally the more important stuff I would recommend looking at though the rest of it provides a lot of context and stuff so I would read everything there will in fact be a pop quiz... jkjkjkjkjk.... unless........

Table of Contents:

1. General Philosophy

2. Case Debate

3. Theory

4. Kritiks

5. Evidence Debate Specific

6. Contact Info

7. Uniqueness Rant... (no need to look to with regards to paradigm questions just tired of giving the same feedback lol)

My current views for debate, in general, are as follows:

1. General Philosophy:

A) Tech over Truth: Wtf is "Truth" honestly the fact that you vote on the flow shouldn't be an opinion you have it should be a requirement otherwise what is the point of having a judge other than to have some rando arbitrarily and most likely with prejudice decide on random claims it doesn't seem like a very fun event in that world but rather idk an event coated by some serious paternalism coded by all sorts of isms? I know I have def been screwed over before by judges that thought something was "true/untrue" when they were just wrong and describing something I did entire research papers on being like okkkk buddy...
B) Partner communication: I only flow what the recognized speaker says unless you have some sort of framework, performance, or theory justification that is won. Communicate as much or little as you want you do you.

C) Protecting the flow: I do try to protect the flow to the best of my ability. However, I would still recommend calling points of orders just in case I miss something.

D) Things that make me unhappy :( I reserve the right to drop anyone for being bigoted will cause me to drop the team given the real-world implications and harm that it creates.

E) Speaks: I have decided that speaks are probably disablist, sexist, racist, etc. particularly in debate events and as such I will give each team the highest possible speaks be it block 30s and 29.9 or descending by whatever the tournament allows. The exception is if your racist, sexist, antisemitic, disablist, transphobic, homophobic, or any of the phobics or antis or isms (come close to breaking this rule a couple of times although I haven't had to yet...). If I can’t give block scores I will give the winners higher speaks and the losers the lower ones descending.

F) Views on spreading: You do you I can flow. My partner Will White was probably one of the fastest debaters when going max speed so it's highly unlikely you can spread me out as Will could hit like 450WPM without cards and I could flow.

G) Shadow Extensions: I believe Shadow Extensions are new arguments. (A shadow extension is an argument dropped during the member speeches that magically reappears in the rebuttal speeches)

H) Extensions:

I. When extending an argument should it be untouched I am okay with a simple extend _____ there is no need to reexplain as long as your arguments related will not be new and only weighing in the rebuttal speeches. However, if you are planning to leverage it against another argument on the flow you need to explain how it applies.

II. If you are kicking something you do need to say "kick this" or "extend their we meet" or whatever "we're not going for it"

III. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE EXTEND YOUR VOTERS ON THEORY.

I) Cross-Applications in Rebuttals: I believe that cross applications through other sheets of paper are new arguments. For example, if you make an argument on theory and then in the rebuttal speeches apply it to case or K when it is only on theory in the flow and you don't say it applies to case or K that would be a new argument.

J) Words that you say when other people are speaking for lack of a better term: Slow and speed mean to slow down, Clear means to talk clearer not necessarily to slow down, Text means to pass the text, signpost means to say where you're at on the flow.

K) Written copies) Please give me written/typed copies of your advocacies/ROJ/ROB/Interps/counterinterps in case I miss something important. What you write down is the interp is what I will follow unless contested and told to do otherwise. I may ask for clarification after the speech and before the next speech before time starts for the exact wording.

L) Weighing) Absent weighing done for me by the debaters I default to Strength of link>magnitude>probability>timeframe.

2. Case Debate:

A) Affirmative:

I. Policy:

a. Have a plan text and preferably advantages. Other than that it is pretty much up to you and your opponent. I do enjoy a good Heg, econ, and Uniqueness solves the case debate for Tix if you can't think of anything...

b. Advantages: Preferably in the formats of Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, then Impacts or Uniqueness, Links, Impacts. Make sure your uniqueness is going in the right direction, explain your links, and terminalize your impacts. I would love it if you would give me clear links not just plan passes and war, explain how you get to war. Don’t just say death and expect me to do the work for you. If you say gut check as a wise man once told me “I will gut check everything and you may not like that.”

II. Value: Should have a criteria and contentions. You don't need a Value Criteria in addition to your regular one but if you want to provide one strategically that is up to you. Preferably for both Contentions and Countercontentions on the Negative, the structure I usually ran was H.I.S. (Harms, Impact, Solvency) with harms being the harms of the opposing value, Impacts being the impacts of that, and Solvency being the solvency for using your value but I understand there are many different structures and not every value round is capable of having that clear of a structure so how you run it is up to you.

III. Fact: You should have a criteria and contentions. Your contentions should preferably have impacts and not just be statements otherwise it is very hard to weigh the debate.

B) Negative:

I. DAs: refer to section 2.a.I.b. on advantages.

II. Counterplans: some of my favorite debates are plan CP debates having originally been coached by one of the “inventors” of the CP. I’ll vote on any type of perm textual, functional, one with net benefits, severance, intrinsic, timeline, etc. if it’s won. I default to perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. Also going for Severance and going for your aff is not a double turn just two independent win conditions unless the opposing team makes/wins an arg that it is. If a perm hasn't been argued as either a test of competition or advocacy come the 2AR my default is locked and I will consider it a test of competition and any argument as to the contrary as new.

III. Presumption: I default to presumption flows Neg unless the neg runs an advocacy/Alt/CP in which case it flips AFF absent a framework argument that is argued that it is negative. If you’re condo and kick it I default to it flips back to the neg but am open to arguments that it stays aff. Side note: I default permissibility affirms

IV: Offense V Defense: if you clearly articulate how it is terminal defense and presumption is still negative ground I will vote on it. Generally, I vote along a very heavy offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

V: Condo V Uncondo: Default to all plans are condo unless the status is asked and they say not condo. IDC how you run it up to you. Also like the great Amanda Miskell says “Dispo is just Condo in a suit” jkjkjkjk even though it isn't tbh most of the same standards level offense will be triggered on a theory position maybe you get some additional education offense depending on conditions but it seems minimal to me but meh whatever you do you. I don't care one way or another on condo will vote on condo bad (if won) as much as I will vote for infinite condo good (if won) fun math proof for infinite condo here ( I don't think it's fully accurate but its def fun/funny lol): https://debatedrills.com/en/blog/defense-infinite-conditionality/ .

VI: Judge Kick: I don't default to judge kicking the CP but if you win that I should judge kick that's fine. I also think that responses to judge kicking coming out of the PMR in response to new MO framing should be to drop the argument not drop the debater.

3. Theory:

A) Structure: It should preferably have an Interp, Violation, Standards, and Voters. Unless it is an IVI, RVI, paragraph theory all of which I will vote for.

I. Interpretation:

a. No preference for or against any type of Theory run whatever you and friv theory = FUN. Condo bad, no neg fiat, Ks Bad, AFC, Spec, Topicality, Trichot, tropicality, neg gets to split the block, etc. (although I will likely be heavily biased against theory that calls out someone's personal appearance and/or the way they dress... to the point I most likely will intervene and not vote for it but I haven't fully decided on that yet)

II. Violation: probably should clearly articulate the violation even if so blatantly obvious and not just they violate but it can be quick if it’s very clear like if you run F-Spec, just say “they didn’t specify the funding mechanism in the PMC” or something like that.

III. Standards:

a. Your standards should provide clear links to each voter that they work in conjunction with Fairness, Education and/or accessibility and work as reasons to prefer your theory sheet. Ideally, they should be contextualized to the round/interp rather than just general descriptions of the standard.

IV: Voters

a. To vote on theory I need clear explained voters don’t just say Apriori, fairness, and education and expect me to vote on them you need to terminalize those voters and what they mean. For example, with education you could say that education is the reason debate exists and without education, nobody would do debate and it collapses or for fairness say that if the round is unfair we cant evaluate arguments to tell if they're true. Or on fairness, we cant test their arguments/methods/ it skews eval etc.

b. For theory, I have no preference for reasonability vs. competing interpretations and will vote on how you tell me to vote. though I will say I have no idea what reasonability means until you provide some sort of bright line like winning all the Counterstandards and standards or something I dunno your argument you figure out what it will be and without a brightline, I just go back to competing interps

c. I default to drop the team, competing interps, no RVIs, Fairness>education (tho ig it would depend on the impact justifications under this model I am assuming skews eval/truth testing as your fairness impact), Text>Spirit, Pragmatics>Semantics.

d. Abuse: I default to potential abuse is sufficient as CInterps would cause me to evaluate under a risk of offense paradigm comparing the two interps not necessarily what happened in a given round. Unless a very good argument for articulated abuse is given most likely with some sort of reasonability framework being won.

e. A “we meet” that is won is a no link to a theory shell even under competing interpretations unless argued otherwise and very clearly won in the debate. While you can weigh the risk of offense on some level of the we meet if they only meet part of your interp i.e. they don't fully violate like a no link on one of the potential scenarios on a DA. To achieve terminal defense the we meet would likely have to fully meet the interp, some framing claim as to why a partial meeting is sufficient to not evaluate the sheet, and/or the we meet is generated via an interp flaw which means they can't solve their offense given they wrote they're interp bad allowing you to meet.

B) IVIs/RVIs/paragraph theory/Kritikal Turns: I will vote on them if you win them and have clear links and reasons why I should vote on them, tell me how to vote on them and framing/sequencing. I will vote on an RVI but I probably have a slight bias against them. I default to no RVIs but if you win the RVI framing I will vote on it. Also, this is something I have noticed in parli it seems what an RVI is has gotten lost in translation from Nat Circuit LD to Parli, the way I understand it is how it is understood in nat circuit LD i.e. it is a framing claim with regards question of the directionality of offense if you win that something is an RVI you win that offense is Bidirectional, not Unidirectional as under a no RVI theory on framework so saying we get an RVI is sufficient to get an RVI but not sufficient to win an RVI as to win an RVI begs the question of whether you won the theory sheet in itself (when judges vote for bidirectional offense on a K they are voting for an RVI shhhh... don't tell them), if you do and you win you get an RVI and that theory is the highest layer you would then trigger a win condition most likely. The way they've become translated for the most part in parli is just IVIs saying theory is bad not RVIs.

4. Kritiks: Run whatever you want (yes, I know that these examples don't fit cleanly into each category and can fit into several just giving examples) be it more sociological like Cap, Set Col, antiBlackness, Psychoanalysis like Lacan (sidenote: Nietzsche Stan so like the implications of that are generally not the biggest Lacan/psychoanalysis fan in general though I will vote for it just not enjoy myself), or POMO like Nietzsche, Baudrillard, DNG, "eastern" philosophy (probably my fave tbh) like Taoism or Buddhism, your Deont 1AC/NC, and ofc your nailbomb 1AC, IDC I vote on the flow. Don't assume I know your lit even though I know a pretty big lit base and so your K should be clearly explained preferably. As for literature that I am particularly familiar with I mostly ran Nietzsche, Buddhism, Disablism, Anthro, Cap/Racial Cap, Set Col, and Orientalism. However, I am heavily biased against nazi literature please don't run it like Schmitt or Heidegger because ya know... I had family subjected to the Holocaust... K-Affs are fun I def ran them a lot but I probably err slightly towards FWT maybe 55/45 should the best arguments be made although (the best args are rarely/almost never made) so I actually end up voting at about 50/50 or edging slightly in favor of K-AFFs.

II Framework:

A. ROB/ROJ: I think that both are really just thesis claims for your framework and in themselves not necessarily arguments. i.e. a role of the justification for existence absent framework arguments and no function as to what it means and should you make an argument about framework regardless of whether you say the role Role of the ballot/Judge is ___ the function of how I evaluate the round stays the same so in the end whether you say an explicit role of the ballot text or not the end result is the same, therefore it follows that a ROB/J cannot be more than a thesis claim because it doesn't change the outcome of the round by default absent some sort of internal justification but then that begs what it means via the framework arguments rendering the whole thing circular leading back to the same place that it is in fact a thesis claim.

B. Framing: Your framework should preferably offer some explanation on how impacts should be evaluated in relation to other impacts and what should type of evaluation comes first, what methods ought be prioritized etc.

C. I default to epistemic modesty over confidence on frameouts and impact defense. That means without any in-depth explanation, I'll evaluate your frameout as a reason why your impacts are more probable than your opponents, and why your opponents have a lower probability of solving their impacts. If you want me to evaluate your frameout as terminal defense, or a reason the k is sequentially a prior question to the aff, you need to do the technical extensions of why that is necessarily the case. I also default to epistemic modesty when it comes to impact defense that means absent an explicit argument as to why that defense is terminal I will only evaluate it as mitigatory. When it comes to epistemic skew claims I functionally default to confidence as I believe they create new layers within the debate. Finally, stating that X is terminal defense if the claim is uncontested will cause me with regards to that particular impact to view that as terminal defense regardless of whether it is coherent as the implication will not have been contested however, if something is not explicitly stated to be terminal defense and there is not an explicit claim saying it is such or flipping my paradigm then I will view any defense as mitigatory as described.

C. MISC.

1. Will vote on Skep triggers if they are terminalized and explained and I think tricks belong in parli but IG that's up for debate tho.

2. I default to theory is Apriori however, I will vote on K before T if the argument is made/won. Or they are on the same level if arg is made/won.

3. I have no idea what "vote for the best/better debater" means.

4. Not as experienced with Phil tho I do enjoy it and have def learned a lot from former Phil debaters and understand a decent amount of it.

5. Role of the ballots/Judges are really just thesis claims for framework arguments imo from what I have seen though i.g. if you want it to be more binding then that you need to probably make that argument although I will probably all things being equal be more receptive to the claim that its a thesis claim.

III. Impacts:

a. Have them and terminalize them. As stated above don't just say nuclear war or poverty and expect me to do the work for you.

b. full disclosure I probably find the proximal impacts bad for debate highly persuasive. Not to say that I won't vote for proximal impacts if they're won on the flow (I def ran them occasionally when I did debate) and that you've won that they're good but due to personal experiences and the ways I have seen them utilized I have a bias against them. I also think there's a distinction between proximal impacts that occurred in the debate round i.e. someone did something violent in which case I think those proximal impacts are probably persuasive versus proximal impacts brought into the round that your advocacy or alt solves for you or other debaters in-round which is where I find my bias against proximal impacts probably comes in.

IV Alt/Advocacy:

a. Preferably have one and tell me which way I should vote unless its part of your FW, solvency, performance, or something I guess that you don't need one.

b. If it has a really complex idea and philosophy explain what the terms mean either under your alt/advocacy or in your solvency ideally.

V Solvency:

a. You should have it and clearly explain how it solves the impacts you have provided at a minimum. Don't just say we solve you should state the mechanism and way in which you solve.

VI: Perm: Refer to 2, B), II. the perm section under counter plans.

5. Evidence Debate specific:

A) Carded evidence: it is very important for Evidence debate but you must also make arguments not just cite sources. Analytics theoretically can beat cited cards if you do the better debating. Also please don’t get into your source is bad arguments unless they cite the most biased source like Breitbart (obviously evidence comparison is encouraged though) I more so mean the "wahhhh no u, debates) for the evidence chain please send to Joshua.alpert (AT) berkeley.edu

B) Power-tagging/cutting: don't... Please Don’t... I’m very probably pretty receptive to some sort of theory shell against it if it is won... please don’t lose it if you do run it or I will be sad. A drop the argument claim made by the team calling it out at the very least probably has a good chance of winning in front of me.

C) No clipping!!! this shouldn't have to be said but apparently, it does.

6. If you have any further questions feel free to ask me before or after the round or if you have questions about a round I judged feel free to email me or send me a Facebook message.

7. My Uniqueness rant.... feels like half the time I am judging HS rounds with two linear impacts pitted against each other and like some rough uniqueness so I am gonna put a RQ rant on how uniqueness works so I don't have to keep repeating myself

a. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link: I.e. if the uniqueness is headed in one direction things bad the link should be things get better or vice versa on a DA. This means that thumpers/uniqueness overwhelms the links arguments aren't particularly responsive more so mitigatory as there is still only a risk things get worse as such in order to really control the link debate its ideal you control the uniqueness debate as well. (side note: generally case turns also need uniqueness too otherwise they're pretty linear which makes it easier for the opposing team to handwave away with "try or die".

b. Uniqueness positive v negative v flux: Uniqueness in terms of directionality follows one of three types Positive v. negative v flux Positive uniqueness indicates the squo is headed in the right direction (squo good) this is the uniqueness you generally want on a DA, negative would indicate the squo is bad and is what you want on an advantage, and in flux would indicate that it could head either direction it is dependent on a "singular action" it can go in either an AD or DA and generally, requires strong control of the Link/Internal Link debate while strategic in some instances it is generally high-risk high reward.

c. Predictive v Descriptive Uniqueness: Uniqueness can either be predictive or descriptive what I mean is uniqueness can either state what is happening "right now" or in the "past" (descriptive) or it can be predictive describing what is expected to happen in the future look to an econ debate descriptive uniqueness would state that unemployment is at an all-time high with X unemployment and the investor confidence is low at ___ versus predictive would be unemployment is expected to drop ____ because of ___ and investor confidence is headed towards a free fall as X bubble bursts.

d. Uniqueness as a spot for internal links: uniqueness can be used as a spot to place internal links instead of having separate internal links sections you can embed that X type of thing is the internal link i.e. you can have a section that says soft power is the internal link to Heg or investor confidence key to Heg to save you some time from having to flesh out a whole separate internal link section.

e. Brink Scenarios: Please for the love of god have brink and/or flashpoint scenarios in your uniqueness i.e. some event or location that is heading in the wrong/right direction think if you have a war with Russia scenario isolate someplace like the Baltics, arctic, cyberspace, etc. rather than some vague place and isolate why now is key and what is going to happen if we don't do this otherwise it kind of makes your uniqueness linear and a nightmare to evaluate and of course to leverage tbh.

F: Non-Case debate

I K's: The alternative generates uniqueness in a K debate: i.e. all the framing, links, and impacts are generally nonunique until you have created a way to solve them via your advocacy/alt.

II: Theory: Your interp/counterinterp is what generates your uniqueness in a case debate in a similar fashion to how the alt does as you have established an "advocacy/rule" for an interpretation of how debate should functions in order to resolve impacts isolated in the same way that if the alt on a K has terminal defense to resolving its offense making it nonunique and thus not a reason to vote against the AFF it means that should an interp have terminal defense on it it is not a reason to vote down the opposing team as its offense can't be resolved, it also means that absent a counterinterp you don't meet or a we meet/interp flaw that even if you have offense of why the interp is bad you have no way to resolve that offense so the interp is automatically preferable (unless you've impact turned/framed it out ofc).

e. Example/outline:
Advantage Heg:
uniqueness:
1. heg is low right now because ___ (this should be related to the type of power on uniqueness 2 and the location on 3 otherwise you will thump your own offense)
2. __ type of Power is key to Heg
3. ___ Flashpoint is Key to ___ type of power and something bad is happening there rn

Hello,

I've been in debate as a whole for about 8 years. Last debated in '20 (just before rona lol) . I've coached various formats of debate (Policy, LD, Parli, Public Forum) along with being a participant in those formats also. Here's my view: Debate is a space to challenge ideologies and come to the best way of making a change. That may look like a plan text that has an econ and heg or, it's an advocacy that talks about discourse in the debate space. I'm here for you as an educator so tell me where and how to vote. Impact Magnitude in the later speeches will help you and me a lot.

Add me on the Email doc:3offncase@gmail.com

Here's my view on certain arguments:

T and Framework and theory in general: I'll listen and adjudicate the round based on the information that you frame my ballot.

Counterplans: Gotta prove the Mutual Exclusivity of said CP. Not really a preference or style choice on this.

D/A's: Uniqueness has got to be relatively recent or the debate is gonna be a tough one to win. If paired with a C/P you must prove how you avoid said D/A or perm is gonna be super cheezy here. Again don't let that stop you from running it in front of me.

K's: I'm good with whatever you desire to run but if its some super high level (D&G or around that lit base) stuff you gotta explain what that means. Also, please be sure to know your author's lit bases here. Perm debates against K's have to prove the accessibility of the Perm along with the net benefits of the perm. Also, Impact Framing the K is gonna make your job along with mine a lot easier.

K Aff's: You do you. Tell me where to frame the ballot and how to view any performances within the round. You do you. Solvency is gonna be the point of clash along with framing.

Update for '21: My internet at my house is absolute garbage so PLEASE: start at 80% speed, I'm always ready for your speech and I'll give a reaction in zoom if I'm not.

I read heg good please don't hurt me

Previous Experience: 4 years of parli, both lay and flow, for Gunn High School (Palo Alto). I graduated in May 2019.

General Etiquette: Don't shake my hand. Don't linger after the round. All feedback will be given in the ballot.

Don't whisper loudly to each other while your opponents are speaking -- generally, be as quiet as possible while someone else is speaking.

On Speaking: Goes without saying, but no bigotry. If you face a microaggression in the round, please call your opponent out on it -- I will penalize them if it continues.

I don't really care for speaker points and I think they're a bit arbitrary. Therefore, here's my arbitrary rule spelled out: You all start out at 27.5 speaker points and gain 1 point for every good pun you make. I define "good."

Do not spread your opponents out of the round, and clarify all terms and jargon you are asked to clarify. Conversely, you must ask your opponents to slow down or clarify if you feel the need.

You may tag team, but I will only flow what the speaker says.

POIs may be taken at the end of the speech, but I will ask that if you say "I will take your POI at the end," you should waive your final minute of protected time.

POOs must be called for it to be acknowledged and not flowed. Please call POOs on shadow extensions -- I will take them into account. I judge the validity of the POO based on my own flow. (Do not argue with whoever called the POO -- I promise you I do my due diligence and will check to see if it is a new argument. Just continue with your speech.)

On Argumentation: I will not warrant, impact, or weigh for you. It doesn't matter if you managed to impact out to nuclear war and your opponents only impacted out to a 0.1% loss in GDP; If your opponents weighed those impacts and you didn't, I will probably vote for your opponents.

I will always do my best to be a tabula rasa judge (though do be aware that I am human and therefore certain arguments may be a stretch to me).

It's your job to explain the science, technology, history, or concepts that relate to your argument. If you're talking about carbon capture technology in a climate change round, you better explain like I'm 5. I will only vote on facts introduced in the round and will try my best not to intervene or be biased based on my own outside knowledge.

The quality of evidence will almost never be a deciding factor in the round -- this is Parli. Focus on argumentation and logic. (Important caveat: if you're going to make something up, don't insult my intelligence.)

On Theory and Ks: If you invoke theory, I'm going to stop being a tabula rasa judge and I will judge your team harshly if you invoke it frivolously.

For Ks, the same rules apply. I'm pretty harsh about what I think justifies a non-case debate, so these options should be a last resort. I am open to them if I genuinely believe there has been harm done by the end of the K. Please do not use Ks as a means to just "surprise" your opponents.

I was a successful policy debater in high school, many years ago. I've been judging parli rounds for the last 2.5 years. I can flow your round and assess your argumentation, but I won't be up on the latest debate jargon. You'll need to explain the arguments you make and not assume that a quick label or phrase can make an argument for you. I can flow and follow a fast spread debate, but my preference is for speaking that is not faster than normal speech.

I will judge based on the content of the round, and in principal I'm open to any argument you want to make. I enjoy creative arguments, but I'm skeptical of theory that allows either side to ignore the topic or avoid clash. I expect rebuttal speakers to focus on the critical issues, sum up the debate with intelligence, and explain why they've won and how to make a decision.

Hi, my name is Amrita. While at Menlo-Atherton High School, I was ranked #10 in the nation for parliamentary debate, and my school was ranked #1. I was a quarter finalist at TOC my senior year of high school. I've debated at Berkeley for NPDA and Debate Society of Berkeley. I have a significant amount of judging experience in the Bay Area among elementary, middle and high school debate tournaments.

These are some of my thoughts on debate: I am as tabula rasa as humanly possible. If I know things are false I won't intervene implicitly, (but I might subconsciously) so don't lie or do anything problematic. The best advise I can tell you is that you do what ur best at. I always liked judges who were flexible so I strive to be that as one. If my preferences don't align with your strategy, don't try and change them to make me happy it will most likely lead to worse off debate.

Add me to the email chain: amritabhasin@berkeley.edu

TLDR: Tech>>>>>> Truth, Go fast, read anything, but have fun.

Pref Shortcut:

1 - Theory/LARP

2- Base Kritiks/Phil

3- Pomo Kritiks/Identity Kritiks/Tricks

4/Strike - Lay Debate?

Evidence ethics: Clipping Cards or misrepresenting evidence is a no-go for me. I will follow along on the doc from time to time, however I believe that it is on your opponents to call u out. Clipping is skipping 3 or more words multiple times. If someone bring up an evidence ethics challenge, the round ends there. If I think you are clipping (video proof is most likely necessary) you'll get a L25. If you accuse someone and are proven wrong you'll receive the same punishment. If you feel uncomfortable bringing up an evidence ethic challenge, you are still welcome to read theory on it.

Speed: Go as fast as you want. I don't care if you spread people out of a round especially if you're in varsity. Clarity is very important. I will call slow and clear as needed. If I call clear you're better off repeating your last line as I most likely didn't catch it. I will have the speech doc up while I'm flowing however, make sure your spreading is clear. I think going 80% speed is often more persuasive and will lead to higher speaker points, than going at 500 wpm and everyone barely understanding what you're saying, but you do you.

LARP: This is what I mostly did. This can be really fun to judge so make it a good. Make sure your card says what the tag says (I will check). Its pretty clear if you don't understand your case in CX (or if ur reading something that someone else wrote), so don't put yourself in that situation. I love impact turns and think they are super underutilized in debate. I find that the weakest part of most advantages tends to be the internal-link debate so having good internal-links will reward you with higher speaks. Make sure you have tons of weighing, especially SOL, otherwise I will be mad. I think cheaty-CP are strategic but they definitely justify a lot of Aff flex in answering them. I think 0% probability on an arg is a thing, but the bar for me is very high. In my opinion it is much more strategic to read impact framing args than impact or link defense. Remember, defense does not win you rounds.

Kritiks: I am down to hear any type of Kritik. Kritiks I am familiar with (Cap, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Securitization, Fem Killjoy, Fem IR, Curry, Afro-Pess, Set-Col, and probably more). I like post-modernist Kritiks , however I don't have the best understanding of the lit base, so if you're spreading through densely cut DnG cards in the NC, you better have an amazingly clear explanation of what your K does in the 2NR. If it is a Kritik I haven't seen you most likely need a lot of explanation. Topic specific links are always good (esp if you quote lines from the 1AC) and have a well fleshed out alt. I find that a lot of alt solvency cards simply explain what the alt is rather than how it solves the impacts of the Kritik. I'm also down for Aff K's, but I'm more than fine voting on T against them. For the neg I think the strongest strategy against Aff K's is T + Cap or another one-off K (like afro-pess or something), but I think people should spend more time line by lining the aff. If you straight up concede the Aff as I have seen happen multiple times, the debate is prob gonna be over in the 1AR especially against good K debaters. I'd say I lean 57-43 Neg on Fw vs Non-T K aff, but its possible to change my mind.

Theory: I love in-depth theory debates and even the more frivolous ones. I default to Competing Interps, drop the argument, and No RVIS. I'm pretty neutral on RVI's if you're winning the flow i'll vote on it. I think I-meet RVIs are kinda sketch but if you win one ill vote on it. I'm fine with a bunch of blip theory pre-empts in the 1AC, but make sure they are easy to catch/flow. As long as a shell has its 4 parts (Interp, violation, standards, and voters) I will vote off of literally any interpretation you can think of. I'm neutral on issues such as conditionality and PICS, but I do believe that you should be disclosing on the wiki so it might be slightly harder to win disclosing bad in front of me. Any out of round violations (other than disclosure) are a no-go for me, my ballot is not a referendum on a competitor or person. Down with all theory tricks such as OCIs, and skep comes first. I enjoy meta-theory and weighing between standards and voters (I prefer in-depth strength of link debates over vague fairness vs education debates). I am not the biggest fan of plan flaws, but I will still vote off of it its won. I just need a reason why it is a voting issue. I am highly skeptical of 2ar theory (and will probably intervene against it in most cases); a good rule is that the abuse should be so egregious (lying about the status of a cp) that only one standard should be enough. I am fine with paragraph theory especially for time crunched 1ARs. I have a good understanding of Nebel T and other semantic arguments, but I think that T plurals is often a better strat. Fairness is a voter

Tricks: I read tricks a little bit competitor but my views have changed significantly when I judge. I don't think they're fun to judge or watch especially in front of novices or people who don't have experience answering them. I will still vote on them because being Tab is way more important, but I most likely won't be that happy speaks wide. Tricks are kind of subjective to define and I think reading Phil is totally legitimate, but I have a hard time justifying why I should evaluate the debate after the 1AR or some garbage like that.

Phil: I'm fine with phil debates. Especially more obscure philosophy. The more out there your NC/AC is however, the better the explanation should be in the 1AR/2NR. I have a comfortable knowledge of Kant, Util, Virtue Ethics, and Skepticism. I also get most analytic philosophy. I think that often times, the weakest part of Phil is the contention level offense so a good strategy for going against weird ac/nc is definitely to link turn their offense and concede their framework. I also have no problem voting on calc indites and think they can be incredibly strategic against LARP debaters. I think these debates can really be awful if ur NC is full of random spikes/a prioris/ skep triggers, so pls take them out. If you don't I'll still vote for you, but I will be really annoyed and have a low threshold for what a response is.

Speaker Points: I give pretty high speaks as long as the debate is flowy and interesting. I should average around a 28.6 esp at circuit tournaments. One way to get really high speaks in front of me is to have strong last speeches (2NRs and 2ARs). If you make strategic arguments and I enjoy judging the debate there is no reason why you shouldn't be getting around 29. I think 30 speaks theory is kinda bs, but I give pretty good speaks so it shouldn't really matter.

I'm an experienced parent-judge and a former APDA debater at Harvard College. I have a fair amount of recent parli judging experience, including the finals of the 2019 NPDL ToC and the finals of the 2018 Stanford Invitational.

I track every argument carefully (in writing) and I take a tabula rasa approach — I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round. I do weigh arguments qualitatively, relying heavily on my judgment to assess competing positions; for me, one very strong argument can outweigh multiple weaker/mediocre ones. I vote for the side who is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful lay-people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Any decision involves tradeoffs; help me understand why your position should defeat their other side, despite (usually) there being considerable merit to many of the other side's arguments.

Theory. I'm not fluent in theory, so if you make theory arguments, you should explain them clearly and very thoughtfully. I prefer not to decide rounds on the basis of theory arguments, and I generally will weigh theory heavily only when one side (or both sides) are being clearly abusive in some way (e.g., arguing a truism; ignoring or unfairly interpreting the resolution; making offensive arguments against marginalized groups).

Kritiks. I don't like kritiks, although I understand why proponents like them. Consistent with my view on theory generally, I strongly prefer that kritik arguments only be made in rounds where the other side is being obviously abusive. In general, I prefer that each side accept the resolution largely as-is and argue it straight up.

Speed. I'm not comfortable with high-speed speeches. I find it difficult to keep track of arguments when someone is talking much faster than a person typically talks when trying to convince someone of something in the real world.

Complexity of arguments. I have a lot of interests in the outside world and I'm open to complex arguments about nearly any topic, including economics, politics, international relations, foreign policy, business, technology, psychology, and pop culture. I'm a longtime participant in the technology industry, and I enjoy complicated tech-related arguments.

Value and fact rounds. I enjoy value and fact rounds, so I don't want them to be converted into policy rounds.

Tag teaming. Tag teaming is fine.

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!

Hello reader, my name is Joel Brown (he/him/his)!

I competed in Policy and Parli on a very lay circuit in high school, and then I competed in Parli and LD in college at Chabot College and at the University of the Pacific. I was also an assistant Parli coach at Washington High School for a year. Altogether, I have a fair amount of experience with policy-style debate.

I try to be impartial about what arguments or strategies you choose to deploy in the round, but I do care that you deploy them well - provide warrants for your arguments, and provide clear decision calculus in the rebuttals. Specifically, don't just link your arguments to x impact, there needs to be an explicit weighing of the impacts in the round.

I'm able to keep up with spreading for the most part, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed as this often impacts your argument quality and consequently your speaker points too.

I'm game for theory debate, but I expect a clear abuse story outlined in the standards that relate to your impacts in the context of the round. I'm not predisposed to either proven or potential abuse threshold, as both have real impacts - hash out the threshold question in the round and then explain your abuse story from there.

Disad/Counterplan debates are also a great option - go with whatever you think fits the round best or what you're most comfortable with. All counterplans MUST be functionally mutually exclusive with the plan or else the perm is terminal defense that I will vote on as the easiest out in the round.

I also think case debate has become something of a lost art, meaning that you can win terminal defense in front of me so long as you frame it correctly and pair it with turns. When it comes to case debate, I won't automatically vote on a risk of offense if that offense is predicated on a claim with missing/dubious warrants.

I frequently ran kritiks as a competitor and I enjoy judging rounds where critical arguments are made on either side, but that doesn't mean I automatically know the lit base you're citing inside and out - my flow benefits from 1) slowing down when introducing your thesis and/or framework at the top 2) presenting a well-developed link story that indicts the specific actions of your opponents case 3) explaining how your alt solves the K per the framework. I am most familiar with critical arguments pertaining to capitalism, race, gender, colonialism, biopower, and the environment. I am less well-versed in other literature, but I can usually track a well-explained and cohesive thesis for the most part.

Round vision is key to wining in front of me - PLEASE COLLAPSE IN THE BLOCK/PMR OR ELSE IT BECOMES OBJECTIVELY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU. It is both easier and more compelling for me to vote for the team that identifies and collapses to a few points of key offense than for the team that keeps doing line-by-line in the rebuttals without providing coherent impact calculus.

Feel free to ask any further questions before the round!

Signposting and roadmaps are a must. You must call points of order on new arguements in the rebuttal as I won't do your job for you. In fact make me do as little work as possible. Im not a huge fan of K's so tread lightly

EXPERIENCE

I am currently a third-year NPDA Parli Debater on the Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley team, and I am a seventh-year debater overall. My high school debate experience included LD (9 & 10), CX (9 & 10), PF (10 & 12), PAR (11 & 12), and Congress (11 & 12).

GENERAL THINGS TO KNOW

- Please do not hesitate to ask me questions before or after the round. If you ask me about my general preferences, I may redirect you to my paradigm (this) or give you a short answer. I would prefer you to read my paradigm ahead of time though.

- I prefer off-time road maps. These should be used to clearly explain the general breakdown of your speech, as I usually flow each argument/contention on a separate piece of paper. Do not jump the gun in giving your speech before it even happens; an off-time road map is only there to prepare me for flowing your speech.

- My speaker points analysis is based on your eloquence and cogency, but I ultimately give the round to the better debaters and the winner of the flow. Therefore, I do not hesitate to award low-point wins, but I wouldn't say I often do so.

GENERAL JUDGING MECHANISM

I would classify myself as a flow judge. However, while I can and will flow everything and am familiar with advanced debate terminology, I am more attracted to the Impact Debate and your proofs as to why your presented impacts will materialize. I ardently believe debate is about telling the judge why they should care about something, and I expect this work to be done by the debaters.

I am down for spreading, but you must be clear and be at a reasonable speed. If you do choose to spread, I'll try my best to follow you: if you speak too fast, I will ask you to "slow", whereas if you speak too unclearly, I will ask you to "clear".

I will do my best to be non-interventionist. Assume that I have a general knowledge regarding what the topic is about, but do not expect that I will autofill any line of reasoning you allude to. I will exercise no preconceived biases, and I will not fill in logical holes within either case, unless both teams force me to (i.e. neither side did so in the debate).

Above all else, please keep the round respectful. If any debater has any reasonable preferences (regarding identity, ability, etc.), I expect all debaters to respect them.

DELIVERY / SPEAKER POINTS

- As I stated earlier, my speaker points analysis is based on your eloquence and cogency, but I ultimately give the round to the better debaters and the winner of the flow. Therefore, I do not hesitate to award low-point wins, but I wouldn't say I often do so.

- Since I give the round to the better debaters, do not worry too much about your speaks if concentrating on that will cost you your arguments. Argumentation is infinitely more important to me than your eloquence and speaking style.

- Call as many Points of Order as you see fit. Please don't be frivolous in doing so, but don't hesitate to call Points of Order because you assume it might frustrate me. That being said, I will try to protect against new points brought up in the LOR and PMR.

ARGUMENTATION

CASE / PLAN / POLICY / TOPICALITY

- Obviously, topical debate should be pretty straightforward. Convince me why your advantages or disadvantages should be weighed higher than your opponents’, and paint the roadmap from A to Z.

- The words "magnitude", "probability", and "timeframe" are golden, and they will guide my impact weighing of the round. If impact weighing isn't done in the round, I will prefer certain weights over others based on your framework.

- I default to the value/framework of Net Benefits and/or Utilitarianism until either side asserts why that shouldn't be the value for the round. Mention "Net Benefits" or "Utilitarianism" to double down on your value in case it is contested in the debate.

- I assume that either side proposing a plan/counterplan has access to policy fiat. This means that either side can assert that the semantics of their plan's execution can be fiated but not necessarily the consequences.

COUNTERPLANS (CPs)

- Please specify if your counterplan is conditional (condo) or unconditional (not condo).

- I default in assuming that permutations (perms) are tests of competition and that they are not, in themselves, advocacies. However, feel free to assert otherwise to sway my decision.

THEORY

- I recognize theoretical arguments as inherently a priori, meaning they should be addressed as a prior question to any topicality or K arguments, but you should incorporate that analysis within your speech as well.

- If you want to make something else a prior question to theory (e.g. a K), explain to me why I should consider that before I evaluate the debate space.

- Make sure you make the Interpretation, Violation, Standards, and reasons for why I should prefer your theoretical argument extensively clear.

- While I don't dislike frivolous theory, I do believe it's easy to address and negate in the round. Take that as you will.

- I do not generally prefer theoretical arguments to be raised in the PMC or the LOR. There are circumstances where this might not necessarily be the case – i.e. something egregious was stated in a Point of Inquiry – but these will be very rare.

- I have a high threshold for accepting new theory shells in the MO or PMR. That being said, if the conditions demand it, go for what feels right!

KRITIK'S (Ks)

- Kritik’s are very hit-or-miss for me. I usually don't like K's, because they are often poorly explained and poorly argued.

- MAKE SURE YOUR K LINKS TO THE RESOLUTION, OR I WILL NOT VOTE FOR IT!

- Don't read a K for the sake of reading one, tell me why you truly want to critique a tenet of the status quo or all of it.

- All of the above being said, if you successfully explain and defend a powerful K, I am much more likely to vote for you than other potential arguments. (High risk, high reward?)

- I am not well-read on philosophy or general kritikal arguments. As such, I do expect you to explain the premise/thesis of your K in great detail.

email for evidence chains: scoxmarcellin at gmail dot com but speechdrop is easier and better in my opinion

Please feel free to ask me clarifying questions before round.

About me: I debated in college, with most of my experience in NPDA Parliamentary and NFA-LD. I had several years in the open division of both, but was not competitive with the top debaters in those events. I'm familiar with jargon, theory, "kritikal" arguments, and can follow speed to a degree. Feel free to ask me clarification or specific questions before round. I want to be in the evidence chain, whether you're using email (scoxmarcellin@gmail.com) or speechdrop or whatever. (I'm a big fan of speechdrop). I'll flow what you say, though.

General / Quick Overview: I consider myself a flow judge, and when it comes to the end of the round that's where I'll be looking to see how the debate played out. Impact analysis is essential in the rebuttal at least, whether you're debating case or theory. I don't believe in an idealized tabula rasa, but I do try to check my biases and will try not to bring in information external to the round. This means I will not "Google" some fact to influence my decision In round arguments and their analysis takes priority. I want you to do the work on the flow and impact weighing.

Theory: I love a good theory debate. I think it can be used to 1) collapse and win, 2) prevent shifting or other unfair actions, or 3) as a time trade-off (pure strategery). Whoever reads the theory needs to have offense (a route to win) on the interp level, a clear link (violation), and standards that flow through to the impacts (voters). I want you to explain to me why I should be doing what you're telling me on the theory (whether I'm rejecting the argument or the team) and why it's more important than the argument the other team made (or even the rest of the debate as a whole). In your rebuttal, if you collapse to the theory position, it's vital you close all doors. Don't give me any choice but to vote on your theory.

I have some reservations for accepting "Reverse Voting Issues" (RVIs) on theory. By default, if the Aff wins the T, or Neg wins the "Condo Bad" position, I don't automatically vote for them. If you can articulate and impact out good reasons why, and the other side undercovers it, I'll vote on it. But don't blip out a "timesuck" argument and expect to win on it. Kritiks of theory, or linking it through the framework debate can be effective, and is underutilized.

Theory need not be an island. Connect it to the rest of the debate: the weighing mechanism, the kritik, etc. I think it's effective to leverage framework arguments from the first constructives on theory, and vice versa. I allow cross-applications from sheets with terminal defense on them, the position isn't erased it's just not a reason to vote a certain way. Whatever you're cross-applying should of course be re-contextualized on the sheet it arrives on.

I have developed some concerns about the amount of aff theory. I suspect that it lets the 1AC advocacy be Conditional, and this seems less than ideal. But I also still believe it's a valuable check against abusive Negs. I haven't observed it affecting how I voted in a round, but it did affect how I felt about that vote afterwards. I suppose this means I'd love to hear good arguments about the role of Aff theory (uh-oh, more meta theory).

Kritik: I have heard some kritikal arguments, and I've run some kritikal debate, so I have familiarity with the structure. That said, do not assume I am familiar with the literature of your author or the ideas being discussed. I believe that someone who presents a kritikal argument has a burden of presenting it clearly enough to connect it to something in the round and impacting it out. Weak and generic links can be a liability, and I am skeptical of links of omission.

Kritiks and speed: the density of information, complexity of language, and speed with which debaters read their long kritiks impedes my ability to flow them as thoroughly as I would like. These seems especially true in the more bullet-point sections like framework. It might be best go through sections with long tags and short analysis a bit more slowly.

Role of the Ballot / How I vote: I think the rebuttals are really important speeches. It's a opportunity to clean up and clarify a busy debate into a few key issues that overpower or control the others. I tend to flow rebuttals on a separate sheet of paper, while looking at the arguments you're referencing next to it. I want you to tell me where to vote, how to evaluate the round, how to weigh different impacts against each other. Don't make me do the work for you. I think black swan impacts and "reductio ad extinction" are more emotionally effective than probablilistic / systemic impacts, but that's a human fallibility that I'm susceptible to, absent impact framing. I don't think they're logically better. Provide analysis of how the in-round arguments (link defense, turns, cross-applications) should alter my analysis of the impacts. Timeframe analysis is sorely under-utilized.

I'm open to non-traditional roles of the ballot. I default to net benefits, but I'll vote on stock issues, presumption, or "whoever best deconstructs post-truth debate." RotB is as much a part of the debate as any other argument.

Recently, I've become interested in the idea of framework debates as clashing models of debate, and I think this can be enough to create uniqueness for your advocacy, especially with good offense against their model.

Speed: I'm used to fast debate, but even I can get spread out by the fastest teams when they're dumping analytics at top speed without explication. I'm generally flowing on a computer when judging, but I'll miss things at top speed. I don't like speed (or anything else) being used as a tool to exclude, and am receptive to arguments about that.

Evidence-based debates: Quality of evidence debates are cool. Reading the other team's small-text at them is also cool. I like to see interesting analysis of evidence, and comparisons between different cards in the debate. Quality can beat quantity, but yeah, quantity has its uses too. Speed: Evidence-based debate can get really fast, and that's fine, but I recommend you emphasize your taglines and slow a little for them if you want to ensure I flow them. Prep time: "Prep stops when you have a) hit send on the email, or b) pulled the flash drive out." (or uploaded to speech drop)

Speaker Points: Arbitrary and problematic, but if I just gave everyone 29.7-30 then it's arbitrarily better for people who get me as a judge. I'm not sure what to do about that. My normal range is 26-30.

I think passion, kindness, creativity, and humor can all have a place in debate. Pathos, logos, and ethos are all tools to bolster your claims. Clever strategies well-handled can be powerful, and can make the debate interesting.

Remember that you're debating in front of and with people. To win, you never need to act in ways that intentionally hurt someone.

Short Version: I'll take any argument (counterplans, theory, framework, Ks, performances, etc.) just make sure you know what you're doing

Background

I'm a current college student at UC Berkeley who did 4 years of parliamentary debate in the Bay Area during high school, with some of my qualifications including being top 16 finalist at the GGSA State Qualifier Tournament, finalist at the 2016 Windsor High School Invitational Tournament, and finalist at the 2014 Georgiana Hays Invitational Tournament. While debating I ran plans, counterplans, Ks, performances, etc. I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible, which is to say that I will accept any argument as long as it has warrants and try to limit judge intervention as much as possible. If no explicit argument is given towards how to evaluate different contentions, if will default to the following methods (feel free to argue for your own during the round though, the ability to contest framework/ROTB is one of the things I love about debate):

Theory

I'm very familiar with debate theory i.e. conditionality, different perm types, etc. and I love good theory debate, especially since framework is often overlooked in parli but GOOD is the keyword here. I expect taglining for each part of the procedural and don't just drop standards like fairness without explaining why exactly they matter and why the opposing case affects them. Again, I'll take pretty much any argument as long as you can argue it well, so go wild with whatever u want to run like RVIs, PICs bad, etc.

Kritiks/Framework

I love critical theory and am familiar with much of the literature (Marx, Heidegger, Deleuze, Foucault, etc.) BUT I find most parli teams don't understand Ks or run them well so be sure you know what you're doing before you run one. Don't just spread through a hundred cards with vague links/warrants to the case you're criticizing, make sure you know what exactly you're criticizing, why your criticism is legitimate, and how the opponent's case links to it. Make sure to take POIs as well, since you can't expect your opponent to be familiar with all the concepts you are. Also, framework is often overlooked even though it is ESSENTIAL to K debate (hence why it's here and not with the rest of theory). If you're running it pre-fiat, you should know what exactly that entails and why it's justified.

Traditional Args (Case, DAs, CPs)

Traditional debate can be just as good as critical debate, and I love subtle arguments that really dive deep into plan function/implementation like attacks on inherency, solvency, etc. Tagline the different parts of disadvantages and counterplans well. I don't have a problem with condo/dispo but I'll take arguments against either. I interpret counterplans/CP advantages as opportunity costs to be weighed against the plan's advantages and similarly, the perm as a theoretical test of whether the CP's potential advantages are really lost by running the plan.

Speed

I'm not a fan of intense spreading, and I honestly appreciate powerful or performative speeches more, but it's fine as long as it's clear and the speaker is willing to take POIs in case the opposing team loses track. If I need the speaker to be clearer or slow down, I'll shout "clear" or "slow". Otherwise, go wild!

she/her

Experience: I've been involved in debate for 10 years. Four years of National Circuit and Local Circuit High School LD at Chatfield Senior; four years of College NPDA/NPTE Open Parli for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley; three years of coaching experience for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley and Campolindo High School.

TL;DR: The short version is that I strive to evaluate the round as technically and objectively as possible. Read whatever arguments you want (provided they are not rhetorically violent), win them on the flow, and don't be oppressive/violent. Ks and k affs are great, theory is great, CPs are great, disads are great, case affs are great. Never worry about me auto-rejecting an argument because it's 'blippy' or 'frivolous', just make sure it's sufficiently weighed.

______________________________________________________________

Long version: The following details apply to both parli and LD, and if there's a paradigmatic difference between the two events, I will make note of it.

Philosophy: The principle that guides my judge philosophy is that judge intervention, while inevitable to some degree, is generally bad and should be minimized whenever possible. Paradigms that welcome judge intervention open the door for judges to make decisions (sometimes subconsciously; sometimes explicitly) on arbitrary criteria like presentation and rhetorical appeal. Evaluation of these criteria frequently comes down to race and gender, as well as being unfair and uneducational to the debaters in the round, so it should be avoided as much as possible. I do believe there can be instances of judges intervening in rounds for good, but on whole, as a general model for how debate ought to operate, I think judge intervention does more harm than good.

Three immediate implications of this:

[1] I default to strength of link to determine the truth value of arguments, warrants, empirics, etc. That means I don't care how "blippy" an argument seems, only whether it is contested; if an argument is conceded, then it has 100% strength of link and therefore is true. I will not intervene on the truth value of arguments, warrants, and empirics, for the reasons explained above (intervening on whether arguments are "true" sets a bad precedent about what the role of the judge is in debate rounds), and because I don't trust myself to know enough about the world to be able to verify the minutia of your arguments.

[2] I generally use paradigms that prioritize 'tech' over 'truth.' To this day, I am still confused about what 'truth' means as the opposite of 'tech.' How does the judge evaluate a round "truthfully"? Does that just mean the judge intervenes on the truth value of arguments (see point 1)? How does the competitive nature of debate factor in to 'truth' paradigms? If there are some arguments that are not open to debate ('true' arguments), wouldn't the more 'true' side have a massive advantage over the other? As a result, I think tech debate paradigms are more fair and educational, so I default to them.

[3] I use speaker points to reward good strategic calls and execution, rather than performance or rhetorical appeal. I don't like evaluating elements of debaters' in-round performances, such as persuasion, affect, rhetoric, speaking style, etc (again for the reasons above). However, if you are rhetorically violent in round, your speaks will be far lower.

All of the other details of my paradigm stem from these three points.

General:

- I have no preferences about the following: rejecting the resolution, conditionality/multicondo, 'cheater' CPs, PICs, Ks, 'frivolous' theory, etc. I am more than happy to evaluate these strats, but I think your opponents get to at least try to read theory in response.

- Personally, in order of most to least enjoyed, I prefer Ks, then theory, then case/advantages/disadvantages debates. However, my preferences will never factor into my decision, and I am more than comfortable evaluating any of these types of arguments.

Delivery/Speaks:

- I'm very comfortable with speed, but I know it can be a barrier to teams as well. I will default to evaluating speed but if your opponent asks your to slow or clear, please listen to them. I also don't think tech debate is intrinsically tied to speed; it's possible to have a technical debate that is not fast if speed is a barrier to teams. This means a) tech is not a reason why speed is good, and b) speed is not a reason why tech is bad or inaccessible.

- Don't worry about "performing well" in front of me. As previously mentioned, I will not give speaks based on performance.

- I will say clear as much as I need and I won't penalize speaks for clarity.

- I will not lower your speaks for calling points of order/information, so call away!

Policy/Case stuff:

- I default to believing in durable fiat.

- I default to evaluating your advantages through net benefits and util/some other form of consequentialism unless you specify otherwise.

- Specificity is good! I would much rather vote on your super specific investment bubble disad than your generic government spending disad.

Counterplans:

- I like CPs, especially well-constructed/creative advantage CPs.

- From the general section: I have no disposition for or against condo of 'cheater' CPs. Feel free to read them, but assume your opponents get to try reading theory about them.

- I default to evaluating perms as tests of competitions, but I will evaluate them as advocacies if you give me a reason why.

- I prefer arguments about functional competition and competition through net benefits to arguments about textual competition.

- I default to no judge kick, but I will evaluate it if you make the arguments.

Theory:

- I love theory :)

- I default to potential abuse over proven abuse, but feel free to do weighing between the two in round.

- I have a relatively low threshold for what counts as abuse on theory. Since I default to potential abuse, I vote for the better norm for debate between the interp and the counter interp. This means I am very comfortable voting on 'frivolous' theory and potential abuse.

- I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I think it's hard to evaluate reasonability without a brightline for what is considered to be 'reasonable.' I also don't know how to decide what is reasonable without being interventionist (see the judge intervention section).

- I default to dropping the team on theory, but I have no disposition between dropping the team or the argument.

- I default to theory being a priori to the rest of the debate.

- I default to fairness and education not being voters. This means you have to explicitly read fairness and education as voters in order for me to vote on theory; I will not "assume" they are there.

- I have an extremely high threshold for 2AR/PMR theory.

- I have an extremely high threshold for reasons why case impacts (advantages or disadvantages) should come before theory.

- I default to no RVIs. That means you have to make the argument that theory is a reverse voting issue, I won't just assume that it is. However, I love RVIs and think they're underutilized right now in parli.

Kritiks:

- I love Ks and K affs. I see myself as primarily a K debater, judge, and coach.

- I have a good understanding of most foundational critical theory, so don't be afraid of reading your arguments in front of me. Read your pomo nonsense; read your more structuralist positions.

- As a debater, I tended to reject the resolution more than I defend it, but I am perfectly happy evaluating rounds either way. From above: I think you're probably able to reject the resolution, but your opponents probably get to try reading theory against it. For what it's worth, all else held equal, I think I probably err towards the kritik on the question of weighing k impacts vs fairness and education (55-45), but I think the reason why is because teams frequently fail to explain why concepts like 'fairness' and 'education' matter in the context of the framework/impacts of the K, thus losing if the aff frames out the interp. If you can read framework and with this debate, you will probably win my ballot.

- I default to epistemic modesty over confidence. This means without any in-depth explanation, I'll evaluate your frameout as a reason why your impacts are more probable than your opponents, and why your opponents have a lower probability of solving their impacts. If you want me to evaluate your frameout as terminal defense, or a reason the k is sequentially a prior question to the aff, you need to do the technical extensions of why that is necessarily the case.

- I evaluate the alt like a CP in reference to competition and the perm; if I should evaluate the alt as more of a performance instead, please let me know and explain what this means in the context of the round.

- I don't love reject alts. I'd prefer your alt to be specific, concrete, and actionable.

- I default to theory being a priori to the K, but I'm extremely sympathetic to arguments that the K should come first for a litany of reasons.

Other:

-Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- I default to presumption flowing neg unless the neg reads (and goes for) an advocacy other than the status quo, but I want this to be debated out in the round.

- I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as "contradictory" arguments; or at least, I think conditionality probably resolves a large degree of contradictions. So, I'm sympathetic to the argument that contradictions don't matter if you kick out of one half of the contradiction. However, if you're uncondo, you do need to be careful not to double turn yourself (for example, by reading an uncondo cap K and an econ DA).

- I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it's always better to call points of order just to be safe. There's always a chance I misevaluate whether an argument is new or not, so play it safe and point it out to me. I won't lower speaks or anything for calling points of order, so there's no perceptual risk.

- I will vote on IVIs, but to be transparent I'm not the biggest fan if they're read frivolously. Specificity is necessary here. If you do go for an IVI, you need to do the technical work of explaining why this piece of offense functions independently of the rest of the flow. Absent some justification, I will evaluate IVIs as a piece of offense on the layer it was read. If you want me to evaluate it as an a priori voting issue, I need framing that justifies this. This isn't to say that I won't evaluate IVIs, but it means that you need to do the work of explaining why it's a priori.

- (Parli) The LOR doesn't have to extend every word of the MO. I think the LOR can largely do whatever it wants to, as long as it's not new. The LOR can never really lose the round, but it definitely can win it.

- (LD) Please include me in the speech doc or email chain if there is one.

- If you have other questions I haven't answered, please ask me before the round!

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.

Updated February 25, 2022

Ukraine note: I am normally pure tech over truth, but denying or willfully ignoring the invasion will result in a drop. Thanks.

Debate is an educational activity first and foremost. I will drop speaks, or at the most extreme drop the debater, for conduct which infringes upon the accessibility of the debate space. Namely, no racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ableism, or other discriminatory behaviors will be tolerated.

Background

Most recently, varsity Parli coach at The Nueva School, CA. Not currently employed as a full-time coach.

Former coach at Menlo School, CA and Mountain View-Los Altos, CA. While in school, I was a TOC-level PF debater; I typically debated as part of Los Altos GV.

Short Form Paradigm: I flow and vote off the flow. I am tabula rasa and non-interventionist. I care about evidence and weighing. When I vote, I look to the last speeches first, so you need to extend both your warrants and impacts to those speeches. If you can't tell me why you deserve to win, you don't deserve to win. Give me an easy path to the ballot.

COVID-19 Notice: This is a really weird time, and a really weird way, to be doing debate. Accordingly, for any round conducted virtually:

-I will be very forgiving with technical and related issues. Please speak up or message me in chat if you have literally any problems. Debate is an educational activity first and foremost and that needs to be preserved.

-This pandemic affects all of us in some way, and some of us very personally. Please conduct yourselves with the appropriate respect.

-I will not be minutely assessing speaker points in any round conducted virtually. Speakers on the winning team will receive 30s (or 30 and 29.9 if necessary) and the losing team will receive 29.9s (or 29.8 and 29.7, if necessary). I reserve the right to drop speaks for uncivil and/or discriminatory conduct, ref. my note at the top of the paradigm.

Definitions:

Disclose: to inform the debaters who won the round.

Dropping: to vote against

Fiat power: the government's ability to declare that their plan will pass through appropriate channels into law, and be executed by the appropriate authorities. Fiat power does not absolve the government of the potential downsides of this process.

Flow: my notes of the round. I capture the essence of, or paraphrase, all content.

Framework: an argument about how the judge should assess the various content in the round. A common example is a net benefits or cost-benefit analysis framework, which adheres to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

K: short for "Kritik," a category of arguments which seek "to redirect the focus of debate to whether or not to reject ideas which support or uphold undesirable ideology, language, institutions, or world views" (Bennett).

Line-by-line: a way of organizing rebuttal and later speeches that addresses arguments and evidence in the order they were originally stated, rather than grouping them together in a condensed format, thematically or otherwise.

Non-interventionist: I do not insert myself in the decision of the round; I judge based on who provided the better arguments as recorded on my flow.

Plan: an organized description of the government's proposal for addressing the resolution. It must include a description of the timeframe, funding, and actor.

RFD: Reason for decision. This is provided in written form on the ballot, and frequently verbally immediately after the round as well.

Signposting: when a debater indicates which argument they are addressing, before addressing it.

Spread: a very fast style of speaking, frequently eclipsing 300 words per minute.

Theory (sometimes 'T'): a category of arguments about how the rules of the debate and how it is conducted, rather than arguments about the content of the resolution. "Friv" T, short for frivolous, is that which is only tangentially related, if at all.

Tabula rasa: lit. "Blank slate," meaning I come into the round without bias (as much as possible).

Tag teaming: a parli debate practice when in the middle of partner X's speech, they confer with partner Y, either in a hushed tone or with an audible statement by partner Y that is then repeated by partner X. Statements are not flowed unless they are said aloud by the partner whose designated speech it is. [My own opinion of this practice is quite negative, in the context of in-person debate. Virtual debate sometimes makes it necessary, and that's ok.]

General Paradigm

1. I flow and vote off the flow.

Speed is fine, but if I can't understand you I can't give you credit for the argument. If you spread, I won't drop you automatically, I just won't be able to understand you and so I'll probably end up dropping you. I'll only say "Slow" a few times to try to tell you to slow down.

Signposting is key. I will write everything down, but if you're disorganized, my flow will be too, and that makes my job a lot harder.

I like to give oral RFDs and disclose if possible, but if I need extra time in order to examine my flow, that takes precedence over giving you a decision in the room. I will tell you you're not getting an oral RFD as soon as I realize I'll need the extra time.

2. I am tabula rasa and non-interventionist. I will not complete the argument for you.

I am open to anything as long as it's within the rules of the event. For example, if you're running a plan in PF I'm perfectly open to that, just don't call it a plan (hint: use "advocacy"), and remember the neg doesn't have fiat power in PF.

3. Don't play around with evidence.

If you're acting strange or dodging basic questions, I will likely call for the evidence (more so in PF than Parli).

I will look at any evidence you call for me to look at, if you do so within the round (all events included).

Empirics are king, but they are not the be-all end-all. Smart analytics can beat dumb cards, as Cayman Giordano says.

PF: Within the round you should cite, at minimum, author and date.

4. Weigh your arguments and tell me why you're winning the round. Explain why your voters are preferable. If you have a short-circuit voter or IVI that I should look at first, you need to tell me that clearly AND warrant why I should be considering it first.

5. Be civil, especially in crossfire. If you're questioning whether you should be sassy or not, don't be. I will detract speaks for rude behavior; this is an educational activity.

6. Off time road maps are fine if they're useful and brief. I do particularly like road maps before the Opp block and PMR speeches in Parli, but they're not necessary per se.

It is fine to ask if everyone's ready before you start speaking. It is fine to not ask as well.

PF

1. I like to see high level warrant debate that doesn't get bogged down in "we have bigger numbers" impact debate. Talk about why your side makes more sense and why you have better proof than the other side does.

2. The second rebuttal should ideally address some of the content of the first rebuttal, even if it's only to weigh against it. If you've got a perfect 4 minute long attack on your opponent's case, that's fine, just be aware of the challenges you're going to face later in the round for doing that.

3. If you're going to go line-by-line in summary, tell me off time that you're going to be doing that. I don't care either way, but I prefer to be prepared for that.

4. Framework is not a voter. It is a way to evaluate voters.

5. Give me voters in final focus.

I will not extend arguments for you from the summary: if you want me to vote on it, you must say it in the final focus.

The second speaking team's final focus should address points, most preferably voters, from the first final focus. Extend your warrants and impacts.

6. I don't flow crossfire, but I do pay attention. Crossfire is first for clarifying questions, second for offensive/attacking questions, and third for defensive questions. It is not a time for ranting. It is not a time for restating your case. Having one debater drone on and on reflects poorly on both teams.

7. Speaker Points: Each speech is worth about 4 points and each crossfire one, roughly. Two speeches + two crossfires = 10 points (on the 20-30 scale). A 30 is reserved for practical perfection, and after my decade plus in debate, I can count on one hand the number of speeches I've seen that have deserved a 30. If you get below a 25, you've done something wrong, not just spoken poorly, ref. my note at the top of the paradigm.

8. I'm tabula rasa, so I'm willing to hear theory and kritik arguments in Public Forum. That said, it's really not in the spirit of the format, so please don't do it if it's not justified. I'm also used to arguments of these sorts in high-level parli, meaning that they're well structured, warranted, impacted, etc., so I'd expect the same in PF. Unfortunately, most theory arguments I've seen in PF recently are undeveloped and poorly argued, so please be considerate.

Parli

I am tabula rasa and will vote on anything. Extend both your links and impacts.

That said, coming from a PF background, I prefer case debate. I also like evidence - most tournaments these days have internet prep; you should use it, but be careful with your sources. Full disclosure of topical bias: I'm trained as a political historian and evaluate cases on the flow as a historian would examine documents (I reiterate: be careful with your sources!). I have a regional speciality in Europe, in particular the EU, Germany, and former Warsaw Pact states (esp. CZ, SK, PL, HU), and topical specialties on populism, minority participation in politics, and transitional democracies. Also, if you're going to impact out to nuclear war, your warranting needs to be pretty darn solid, and you're probably going to need to make a case for why I should prefer your end of the probability/magnitude weighing game.

I will vote on all sorts of T, theory, etc, but please signpost and explain each part of the shell. In this case, as in others, theory is no good if there is no praxis to uphold those values, e.g. claiming education as a voter but failing to educate the other participants in the round about the supposed issue. This criterion includes stock components like education and fairness, and is especially true for non-stock. I like listening to bizarre and friv T for entertainment value, but the flow is a sheet of notes incapable of being entertained, and I vote off the flow.

I don't have a background in Ks, but I'll vote on them. I generally find them engaging, so don't shy away, but know that I do not have a high level of theoretical/technical knowledge about the kritik format, nor am I up to date in the latest developments in K debate on any circuit. If it's important enough for you to center the debate around, please consider it important enough to fully contextualize as well. Please do not run an identity K based on an assumption you make about your opponents' identities, which could lead to outing. Many identities are not visible.

Speaker points (if in person): I treat 27.5 as my average, scoring roughly on a flattened bell curve. Typically, the highest speaks I give on a regular basis at an invitational/flow tournament is a 29.2. The highest level tournaments may see a 29.5. I have yet to see a parli speaker deserving of a 30.

Tag teaming is absurd for high level debaters, and I'll deduct your speaks if you do it. Exceptions to this standard of deductions are granted for COVID and for teams of mixed experience (e.g. 8th and 12th graders together for a learning experience).

POIs are a courtesy. It is nice, but not necessary, for the speaker to take them. POIs need to be a question. If you don't ask a question, I will deduct your speaks.

POOs: I will comment on them in the moment, saying that the POO is either a) valid/sustained, i.e. the argument is new, b) invalid/overruled, i.e. that the argument is not new, or c) that I'll need to examine my flow more closely.

I'm a parent judge; I participated as an LD Captain at Westlake years ago. I like strong and clear arguments, good clash and no fake news. I'm fine theory shells and Ks. I'll vote on progressive arguments but they should be explained/carded. I'm good with tag teaming and partner assists but I prefer that that speaker have control of the time. I'm good with spreading as long as you sign post well. Don't use POI to make an argument - keep it to 15 seconds and questions only.

Firoz Gill

Background:
4 years of high school parli, 1 year of NPDA parli

Default paradigm:
- I am a flow judge.
- I default to comparative worlds and net benefits.

Flowing:
- If I don't understand an argument the first time I hear it, I won't flow it / vote for it

- Voter issues are crucial. Weighing arguments is super important to me. Otherwise, I may have to weigh things myself.

Presentation:
- Most debaters think they can spread, but very few can. Unless you are absolutely certain in your ability to remain crystal clear at high speeds, don’t go over 300 words per minute. Every time I yell “clear!” your speaker points suffer.
- Slow down A LOT on argument taglines, author names, theory interpretations, case theses, K alternatives, plantexts, and CP texts. For the latter three, you should have copies of the text ready for your opponent and the judge.
- I prefer cards to have author qualifications and year read aloud.
- Eye contact doesn't matter, but voice modulation does.
- If you said everything you needed to say, don't ramble to fill up speech time, just sit down.
- Example of a bad NC roadmap: "First, I'll read my NC in which I argue that justice doesn't exist, then an off-case which will be a topicality on "ought", and finally I'll prove why the affirmative case is wrong."
The function of a roadmap is to help me put the pages of my flow in order; any information that doesn't do that is superfluous. An off-case is anything that's not on the affirmative case. NC stands for "negative constructive," not "negative case."
Example of a good NC roadmap: "2 off, AC."
- I will typically give an oral RFD.

Argumentation preferences:
- All arguments should have warrants. I will not vote on blips.
- An empirical warrant can appeal to common knowledge, but cards trump common knowledge.
- An analytical warrant does not require a card. A quote from a philosopher may contain a warrant, but simply the fact that some philosopher agrees with you does not constitute a warrant – that’s the “appeal to authority” fallacy. I hold up analytical warrants made by carded philosophers to the same level of scrutiny as analytical warrants made by debaters.
- I like positional cases.
- Weird stuff is great if you can pull it off.
- Critical/discourse cases are fine, but slow down on confusing parts. Specific alternatives with solid solvency are a plus. I tend to buy intuitive answers to Ks.
- Theory is fine if they're actually abusive, but don't overuse it. I tend to buy "reasonable limits" answers to it. I'll vote on RVIs (high threshold). I think theory is a type of a discourse argument (Fairness K or Education K), with violation as the link, standards as the impact, interpretation as the alternative, and voters as the framework. The implication is that theory can be weighed against other discourse arguments. Also, most theory debates are boring (Prefer not to have theory debate).

- The value/criterion model is often abused to exclude relevant argumentation. I think that debate rounds which are more practical are better off with a generic standard without a criterion (as a parli debater, I am used to net benefits) and with impacts weighed out primarily on the contention level; the more philosophical debates should just have the philosophical framework as the standard. I will use net benefits unless you give me good reasons to prefer another standard.
- I won't vote any type of argument down right away, so if you feel confident you can win it, run it, and have fun.

I love good Neg. strategy and think multiple positions (T, CP, K) is a great way to strategize. Also, I love great CPs (especially PICs). I think they're pretty real world and test the Aff plan fully. I am fine with conditional stuff as well. As Aff. make sure you ask if things are conditional or not.

If possible try not to exlclude the other team by spreading. Also, if you do spread through a CP, T, or K it would be helpful for you to give the other team a copy in order for them to better follow along.

I think the Aff. Should limit the resolution in a way that’s beneficial to them. (I’m fine with some Extra T).

He/him/his

My email is jrogers31395@gmail.com if you have questions, or if I'm judging Policy/LD/PF

On general argumentation:

I have a fairly nihilistic approach to impact calculus, but assume that death is bad.

Analyzed evidence > evidence > reasoning > claims.

On delivery:

Talk as fast as needed. "Slow" means slow down; "clear" means enunciate more.

If you exclude others, they can argue that you should lose for it.

I reserve the right to drop you if you're an asshole.

On Theory:

I default to reasonability, and would much rather judge either substantive policy or critical debate -- don't choose not to run theory if you actually feel like the other team is being abusive. I understand the strategic utility/necessity of theory, and have run/voted for a few garbagey theory shells before.

The aff should probably be topical, but if you don't want to be, just justify why that should be allowed.

On Kritiks:

I enjoy good Kritik vs policy or K vs K debate -- I personally have the greatest degree of familiarity with Marxist anti-capitalist stuff, and I've got a decent working knowledge of most of the popular kritikal lit bases I've seen recently.

If you can't clearly connect the theory/structure you critique to material harm and present an alternative that can solve it, I don't know why I should vote for you.

For carded debate:

Please slow and emphasize the author, date, and tag - it makes extensions much cleaner if I actually know what cards you're talking about

I only call for cards if the other team says you're lying/powertagging, or if one card becomes the fulcrum for most/all terminal offense in the round.

Experience

Former Varsity Parli for Menlo-Atherton.

Theory

Fine with theory arguments, I'm much more likely to buy it if the standards are specific and you identify lost ground.

Be explicit and tell me how to weigh your impacts against other layers.

No RVIs (reverse voting issues), but I'm not a fan of frivolous theory.

K

I am down for most K's and K Affs, and I love interesting arguments and advocacies, including performance.

I look for two main things when I am evaluating K debate:

1. Framework

- I need clear theoretical justifications for the arguments you are making.

- ROTBs (role of the ballot) are crucial for me, so make the debate over competing and meeting rotbs robust.

2. Alt Solvency

- Don't pretend that your alt is going to radically change the world. Tell me why your advocacy might change the way I think or the way I perceive the world (and if you can link your alt to concrete action, even better). If you do that compellingly, I am going to be picking you up more often than not.

General Speed and Tech

Fair warning, if you are spreading, I probably won't catch a bunch of your arguments.

As for advanced tech arguments, I wasn't ultra flow, so I might not be familiar with them. Explain it in lay terms if you feel like I am not getting it.

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.

Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

Background

I debated parli for four years in high school for both Livermore High School and Mountain View/Los Altos. For two of these years I was active on the NorCal high school circuit. I am continuing debate with Santa Clara University. I am a Computer Science and Engineering student so please don't lie about tech.

Approach to judging

I am not a tabula rasa judge, but I am not going to do work for you or throw out arguments I do not like. Simply I am more likely to buy certain arguments and less likely to buy others.

I come to debate seeing some of the split in the community as a competitor. I believe that debate is both a game and an educational activity. Debate does not occur in a vacuum, and as public speakers or future policy makers, debaters have a responsibility to not use rhetoric upholding racist, sexist, etc ideologies. I will average speaker points based on the tournament average, but will save 30s for exceptional speeches.

Argument preferences

Counterplans: Counterplans are great, but the neg should explain how it competes coming out of the 1NC. Permutations are legitimate, but they are a test of the advocacy, if the aff advocates for the perm, I view that as severance. Kicking CPs is fine as are multiple CPs or advocacies, although I am open to the theory arguments against them as well.

Evaluation order/methods: Framework and arguments may change my evaluation order, but this is the default.. In a tie, I vote neg unless the neg has a CP or other advocacy flowed through at the end of the round, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, and default to net benefits for both..

Impacts: Have impacts and terminalize them. Don’t worry about getting to nuke war unless you have a good linkstory. Dehumanization is important, and discussion of systemic impacts is encouraged. I also like the environment and technology, so impacts based around that may earn you higher speaker points.

Kritiks: I am happy to listen to most kritiks, aff or neg. Kritiks requiring spreading your opponents out of the round are difficult for me to accept and I am more likely to vote on speed theory than many judges in the circuit. If your opponents call slow or clear, slow and/or clear, DO NOT just ignore it. If you are going run a K, make sure you clearly explain how it functions and the literature. I am not conversant at a high level in most literature, and even if I am, it will make the round clearer and more educational for everyone involved. Signpost your K and keep it clear and organized. Also be prepared to give your opponents a copy of the alt text if they ask. I tend to evaluate prefiat arguments first on framework, but I am willing to weigh discursive implications of the postfiat arguments/case against them. I do expect that those facing a K will put in good effort to engage with the K, even if they are looking for me to vote other places on the flow, so argue more than just framework or theory (unless you’re being spread out, in which case that is more acceptable). I am also more willing to weigh generic arguments against the K, but make sure to explain how they interact with this K in particular.

Also stealing something from Julie Herman in how I deal with K alts to encourage more variety and better Ks:

I am trying something new here. I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does.

Theory/Topicality: If you want me to vote for theory, you need to make sure to give it impacts/voters. If you want it to do something else in the round, explain how it should function in the round. I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but please don’t use theory just to beat a less technically skilled debater. Theory has a place both as a strategy and to maintain fairness, but don’t overuse it. I err towards voting to maintain fairness and education, and default to competing interpretations on theory. I will vote on RVIs but not commonly, so make sure you have good reasons for it (ie critical turns or clear times skew).

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I can follow any formatting, but I prefer advantage/disadvantage for policy rounds. I can follow best if you signpost and have a clear structure. Impact calculus and an overview in the final round make my job the easiest.

Tag-teaming: I am fine with tag-teaming, though I will only flow what the current speaker says. If it takes over, it may impact speaker points.

Questions: Points of information are good. Use them strategically to either get the opponents onto another topic or clarify the case or debate. Points of Order stop time, with the side calling the point of order gettting to make their case, then the side defending getting to respond. There shouldn’t be back and forth in this time. I will make a ruling and then time will start again.

Respectfulness: Be respectful! Rhetoric is important and I am very open to voting on issues about speech in round if one side is hostile/offensive towards an oppressed group. I will buy rhetoric turns and rhetoric can undermine your case. I will penalize speaker points for hostile or offensive speech acts regardless of your opponent's’ responses.

Speed: I can follow moderate speeds, but may penalize speaker points if your speed interferes with comprehension. Be respectful of your opponent. If they have a high level of difficulty following your speed and make an impacted argument about it in round, I am open to voting on it. You can decrease the chance of me doing this by slowing/clearing if they yell SLOW or CLEAR. If you repeatedly ignore these requests, I will punish your speaker points. I will call slow or clear if I cannot understand you, but will do this a maximum of 3 times, after that I will just put my pen down and stop flowing if you’re going too fast.

Other: I expect you to provide a written copy of a plan/CP/K thesis/K alt/Interpretation to the opponent if asked, you may want to write it out ahead of time. Any team should be able to call “text” during your speech and you should get them a copy by their speech, but preferably asap. Please read these parts or your speech twice and slow down a little if you are going at any sort of speed.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round.

I debated LD for 4 years at Monta Vista High School, and now I debate on the parli team at Berkeley. If you have questions message me on Facebook.

[most of this is adapted from my former teammate Oliver Zhao's wiki]

You probably don’t want to go at full speed if you can't enunciate.

Most of what’s below are just my own opinions on different types of arguments so if you’re pressed for time, I’ll give a tl;dr on the most important stuff

• Plan, cp, perm texts and T/theory interps should be read SLOWLY and written down
• Affs should (generally) defend the topic
• Please weigh

LARP
For plans: I find the weirdly specific plans in the topic lit way more interesting than whole res, but I’ll also listen to T.

For counterplans: Condo is cool so long as the advocacies aren’t contradictory. I read some PICs when I was in high school so I’d be willing to vote for those too.

Remember to read your plan texts/cp texts/perm texts SLOWLY.

K
I read mostly Ks in high school, but don’t assume that means that I know what your authors are saying. Error on the side of caution.
You also should explain exactly what the world of the alternative looks like, and why this is a fair advocacy.

Aff Ks, performance, etc. are all fine as long as you give me a way to evaluate the round that isn't just vote Aff. I prefer that your affs be topical in some way or another. It’s perfectly ok (even encouraged) to have an unconventional reading of the topic provided you’re ready to debate T, but probably less ok to completely discard the topic in favor of your own position.

T/Theory
Theory debates tend to be fast and blippy so a well-organized speech doc with your analytics can do wonders for my flowing.

I’ll default on competing interps, drop the debater, fairness over education, and no RVIs provided neither of the debaters make any claims toward either direction.

Things I like

• Counterplans
• Weighing
• Even if you don't buy this argument, etc

Hello, my name is Alexander and I'm a debate coach and former competitor. I've been in the parli world for about 7 years. I view myself as a note-taker and I evaluate the round based on who did the most effective debating. Please use impact calc in your rebuttals. Please have warrants for all your claims.

Things I dislike: I very much dislike frivolous theory arguments like "neg must only defend SQ" or "neg must only defend CP" or "AFF must have a period in their plan text". I think legit theory arguments are: PICS good/bad, Condo good/bad, must defend a plan text, must take a question, spec arguments, T: substantial, and the classic Topicality arguments. Overall, the more sheets of paper you introduce in the MG and MO, the messier the round will probably be.

I also dislike AFF Ks that completely disregard the resolution. You don't need a plan necessarily, but I think the rez is the central locus of the round and if the AFF just ignores it, the neg is inherently skewed strategically. (Especially because AFF has the PMR.)

Background: Am a first year debater for the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. In HS, Debated Parli 3 years @ Bishop O'Dowd, qualled to TOC the last year. I went 0-5 at NPDI my sophomore year, then 0-6 my freshman year, and dropped instantly in Octo's my senior year. F to pay respecc

Run whatever you want, I will try to stay on the flow, I'm also human tho. I shake hands but I also take hugs if you want/need one or would like to give one 🙂. Only rules I would enforce speech times, not being problematic, only one team can win, and no new arguments in the rebuttals.

Kritiks: We stann a good kritikal debate, u can run 'em on Aff or the Neg whatever. You don't even need to be topical on the aff lmao. I really like survival strategies and performances. I'm not that familiar with super obscure pomo lit, you should explain it and take POI's, I'll for shore vote on it.

Theory: Specifically for Framework T, I think the K-Aff can be weighed against framework t. I have a higher threshold for fw/t. I default to competing interpretations. Will vote on RVI's/IVI's if they're won. Friv t is really stupid but I will vote on it.

Policy Aff's: Good policy debates are fun, esp specific tricky aff's. My HS debate career was this and it was trash, but I p much exclusively go for the K at this point in time.

Speaker Points: These are fucking diarrhea, they are always influenced by implicit bias and other crap. I will likely give a 29-30 to everyone. See below for auto 30's, ❤ performances. I will give a 0 if you are problematic.

Speed: I'll clear and slow you, so start out as fast as you want. Slow down for important texts like ROTB and Advocacy texts etc.

Point of Orders: I'll definitely will try to protect against new arguments, but I'm not perfect, so call them if you can. I consider shadow extensions new args.

Framework: It's your job to tell me how to frame the round, so I will evaluate impacts based on the framework won by either side. I default to a ROB that is somethign like vote for the team with the most biggest bestest impax if none is provided.

Auto 30's:

Acknowledging Sri Lankan people ever - if you do this you will be loved by me forever and my people, and also auto 30 <3

Quoting avatar the last airbender, star wars, ifinity war, team fortress 2, the yogscast, captainsparklez, antvenom, the great british baking show, martha stewart, grandpa's kitchen on youtube, watchmojo top 10's, Tasty, jerma, ster's old videos like sweet genius except that's kind of new.

Performances

Funny Jokes (v subjective, poop jokes are always a winner)

Giving me money, or paradoxically Stealing my money (I love this money)

*SPEED AND CLARITY

To ensure that your arguments are flowed, please notice when I shout clear or slow. Also, it's been a while since I've debated, so I'm probably not great for spreading.

*KRITIQUES

I'm usually down for Ks. I realise, however, that I tend to be a little biased against most biopower, cap, and sometimes race Ks. If I don't like a K, the problem is usually with the alt. This said, please try to refrain from endorsing a very generic, one-size fits all alt or try to put more ink on explaining it.

*RESPECT

Debators who are rude and impatient to their partners or opponents risk a markdown for speaker points. Yet worse — when you are rude, you invite risks that I may subconsciously pay more attention to arguments you've dropped and underestimate your stronger ones. This could be unfair for you, so please be strategic — not just with arguments, but behaviour too. I suppose that, as is with any form of conversation, being amiable is usually a good idea if you wish others to agree with you.

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

I did parli in high school so I am pretty much good with most types of arguments but if you run a kritik you better win it cause I prefer case. Be clear with your arguments and speak at a reasonable pace. If your opponent constantly has to yell clear or slow down I will dock points for that because debate is educational and you should not be doing that just to win. Make sure to signpost where you are so I can flow properly and weigh your impacts at the end of the round and have clear voter issues so I know what to vote for. Theory is completely okay with me if there is a real issue but please don't run it as a time suck and you should be good. I'll generally give 28-30 speaker points because that shouldn't be the reason you break or not and will only dip below that if you do something unfair, rude etc. Otherwise, have fun and do your best.

Pronouns: She/they

Tldr; It is important to me that you debate the way that is most suited to you, that you have fun and learn a lot. While I have preferences about debate, I will do my best to adapt to the round before me. The easiest way to win my ballot is lots of warrants, solid terminalized impacts (ie not relying on death and dehumanization as buzzwords), clear links, and a clean as possible collapse.

• For more lay/policy-oriented teams: Please sign-post, give warrants, and solid impacts. There is value in drawing attention to death and dehumanization but I would prefer that you speak beyond death & dehumanization as buzzwords -- give me warranted impacts that demonstrate why death & dehumanization are voting issues. Please make your top of case framing clear and try to stay away from half-baked theory positions. I would prefer a full shell with standards and voters, please.

• For critical, tech, and/or speed-oriented teams: I love it all -- I am open to the criticism, policy, performance, theory; whatever you want to do. Please keep in mind that my hearing is getting worse and being plugged into the matrix makes it even harder to hear online. I may ask for some tags after your speech if you spread. I probably default to competing interps more so now on theory than before but I’ll vote where you tell me to.

• For non-NorCal debaters: I recognize that debate varies by region. I’m happy to accommodate and do my best to adapt to your style. That said, I’m more likely to vote on a clear and consistent story with an impact at the end of the round.

Longer threads;

• RFDs: I’m better with oral feedback than written and I will disclose. The brainpower to write RFDs is substantially more draining than talking through my decision. I think it also opens up opportunities for debaters to ask questions and to keep myself in check as a judge. I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

• Kritiks: are important for opening up how we think about normative policy debate and a great way to challenge the performance/role-playing of policy debate. Given that many kritiks are an entry point for students to access policy-making/the debate space I am less enthused about opportunistic or abusive kritiks and arguments (which mean it's safe to assume I see debate as a pedagogical extension of the classroom not as a game). Please do your best to explain your position, especially if it’s somewhat obscure because the farther I get away from being a competitor, the less familiar I am with some of the stuff out there. For reference, I was a cap debater but don’t think I will just vote for you if you run cap. I actually find my threshold on cap ks is much higher given my own experience and I guess also the mainstream-ness of the cap k. I have a strong preference for specific links over generic ones. I think specific links demonstrate your depth of knowledge on the k and makes the debate more interesting. Please feel free to ask questions if you are planning on running a k. I think identity-based kritiks are * very * important in the debate space and I will do my best to make room for students trying to survive in this space. I’m good with aff k’s too. Again, my preference for aff k’s is that your links/harms are more specific as opposed to laundry lists of harms or generic links. It’s not a reason for me to vote you down just a preference and keeps the debate interesting.

• Theory: Please drop interps in the chat and make sure they are clear. As stated above I probably default to competing interps, but I’ll vote where you tell me to. RVIs weren't a huge thing when I was debating in college so I'm honestly not amazing at evaluating them except when there's major abuse in round and the RVI is being used to check that. So if you’re sitting on an RVI just make sure to explain why it matters in the round. I have a preference for theory shells that are warranted rather than vacuous. Please don’t read 9 standards that can be explained in like 2.

• Other items

• I do not flow after the timer. I've noticed this has become more and more abused by high school teams and I'm not into it. So finish your sentence but I won't flow your paragraph.

• Off-time roadmaps are fine.

• Very specific foreign policy debates are fun and extra speaks if you mention what a waste the F35 is.

• I will drop you or nuke your speaks for racist, transphobic, sexist, or just generally discourteous nonsense.

• POOs -- Since we're online, I don't pay attention to chats (unless reading interps) and I don't recognize raised hands. So, please just interrupt and ask your question. It's not rude, just makes things easier.

If you've read this far lol: sometimes knowing a little about my background helps debaters understand how I approach debate. I debated parli (& a little LD) at Santa Rosa Junior College for 3 years. My partner and I finished 4th in the nation for NPTE rankings and had a ridiculous amount of fun. Then we debated at San Francisco State University for our final year with the amazing Teddy Albiniak -- a formative experience and a year I treasure deeply (long live the collective! <3). Our strengths were materialism and cap, and very specific foreign policy debates.

Go gaters

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

Hey - I debated LD and Parli for 3 years and graduated from Northwood High School (Irvine, CA) in 2019. I qualified to LD and Parli TOC my senior year. I also debate NPDA for Cal (I’m a 3rd year right now).

Include me in the email chain: karkri23atgmail.com

tldr:

For High School Parli TOC:

I am and always have been a lay judge (You don't need to read the rest trust me).

I will evaluate the flow as objectively as possible with minimal intervention (speed is fine)

Read any theory/K/phil you want and I'll evaluate it

All things being equal, I lean FW-T over K but can be convinced otherwise

Love a good Case/DA/CP debate the most but you do you

Don't be a jerk and you will probably get speaks somewhere between 28-30

I will vote on presumption

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.

Where to Pref me:

Larp: 1

Theory:1

K: 1

Phil: 1

Tricks: 1

In case you haven't noticed, I am a GOD.

Most importantly, Have fun :)

The Long Version:

What I read in LD:

Aff - big stick, soft left

Neg - topic da+cp, politics/elections da+states cp, afropess, cap, topicality, Agamben, Baudrillard

What I read in Parli:

Aff - big stick, soft left, Orientalism, Settler Colonialism, Model Minority

Neg - topic da+cp, politics/elections da+states cp, afropess, cap, topicality, Agamben, Baudrillard, Settler Colonialism

Parli Specific Notes:

Speed is not an issue for me but if you excessively yell slow and clear to your opponents and proceed to be just as fast and unclear, I will be fairly annoyed.

Call POO’s just in case but I will protect

Weighing is not a new argument

The PMR does not get new warrants unless its answering a new MO argument. However, cross applications are cool as long as the warrant and implication was made in the MG and you are just merely weighing it on a different part of the flow.

LOR does not have to extend the MO

I think ruse of analogies with K debate or Independent Voters can be pretty problematic and/or nonsensical at times and realistically believe that you should make the internal link very clear as to how certain actions and rhetoric relate to larger events or mentalities.

General Notes (Mostly LD):

All impacts matter - the degree to which they matter is up for debate. This means I'm not fond of strategies that rely on preclusion or permissibility. (This does not mean you can make arguments as to why considering a certain type of impacts can be violent e.g. focus on materiality is settler colonial so you should not weigh the aff. However, just asserting the state is settler colonial means no aff is not compelling.)

Dropped arguments only mean the warrants for them are true - their implication can still be debated.

Bad arguments should be answered easily

LD: Extending the case in the 1AR does not mean card-by-card extensions. Leverage warrants in 1AC evidence efficiently.

Pet peeve: "that was in the overview"

LD: Clipping is cheating - if I notice it, then you will lose regardless of whether your opponent notices it.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to 1NC arguments about only needing to respond to spikes if extended in the 1AR - this does not apply to topicality preempts and/or paradigm issues. I don't think putting condo/pics/etc bad in the aff and warranting it properly counts as a "spike"

I'll clear you 3 times - after that, it's up to you to notice that I'm not flowing.

Do what you want with flex time/CX but good questions can definitely help your speaks

LD Only: Disclosure - more is better. I believe all cards should be disclosed open source (this includes the 1AR/2NR). I am happy to boost speaks for good disclosure practices - just tell me before the round. I'm more willing to vote on theory arguments related to disclosure than almost any other theory argument.

Parli: Disclosure is not a thing and I will not vote on it

Saying "independent voting issue" doesn't matter to me until there's a warrant for why.

Defaults (These can be easily changed by just asserting the converse should happen)

T/condo/disclosure: Drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs

All other theory: Drop the arg, reasonability, no RVIs

Epistemic modesty

Affs -

Do what you want- defend the topic or don’t. I probably lean slightly towards T-FW but I am willing to vote against it if the arguments are won.

Topical stuff:

Properly warrant out the internal links to your scenarios- even if you are big stick, explain to me why extinction happens because of tensions. Solvency should be specific to your aff.

If your only strat against Agent CPs and PICs is theory, you probably should have written a better aff.

Disads -

I love a good case vs da/cp debate- if you do it well you will probably get high speaks in front of me.

LD Only: I like both topic-specific and politics - I read a lot of cards after the round, even if you didn't reference them. That's not what makes my decision, but I compare it with my flow.

LD Only: Affs need cards against politics disads.

Counterplans:

I have no real disposition for or against condo. Feel free to be condo, but I’ll also evaluate condo bad theory.

I have no real disposition for or against “cheater” counterplans. Feel free to run consult, delay, sunset, etc., but I will evaluate theory against them.

Permutations are tests of competition

I will judge kick CP's as long as you tell me why I should and under what conditions I should kick it under.

T-FW:

Do what you want but make sure that if you are going for it, implicate your fairness and education impacts as either a prior issue or as turns specific to the aff's method.

I read this a lot and I love a good collapse on it.

I am more than willing to vote against it but all things being equal, I probably lean towards FW rather than against it.

Other T/Theory:

I am very comfortable voting on “frivolous theory.”

I will vote on disclosure theory in LD, and I am very sympathetic to disclosure good.

Paragraph theory is fine but if I miss it, then your opponents most likely did too and I won't vote on it.

I have no real disposition for prioritizing proven abuse or potential abuse. I will default to potential but can be persuaded otherwise otherwise.

I default to drop the team for most theory but I will buy drop the arg if it makes sense. When reading theory, give me a good reason why I should drop the team or the argument.

RVI's are fine

Burdens arguments don't need voters, but they do need sequencing claims.

I think that fairness vs education weighing is highly strategic. Nine times out of ten when you go for theory, you should tell me whether I should prioritize fairness or education, why, and what the in-round implication of the weighing is.

Kritiks:

I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, so don’t be afraid of reading your arguments in front of me. However, informative overviews and explanations are appreciated, especially if the K lit is dense.

If it’s relevant, the ks I’m most familiar with and used to running include Anti-Blackness, Orientalism, Cap, Set Col, Agamben, Baudrillard and Deleuze.

I default to evaluating the alternative as a method of resolving the k. This means I don’t particularly care what the “world of the alternative” looks like, as long as you’ve told me why your method is a sufficient strategy to resolving the harms of the k.

I evaluate the alternative like a counterplan in terms of conditionality/permutations. See the CP section.

I default to evaluating fairness and education before the k, but I will buy arguments that kritikal impacts either come before or impact turn theory impacts.

If you have questions or if there’s a question I haven’t answered, please ask me before the round!

Proud student of the Max Wu Academy for Academically Average Scholars.

A bit of history on me, I debated Public Forum for 4 years at Leland. For speechies, I did 3 years of Duo and 1 year of HI that I regret. I did alright, never enough to make a huge name for myself but I met some really great people and had a lot of fun.

Debated both BP and NPDA for UCSD, was fun.

As for judging, I try to be tech over truth as much as possible. I also flow like a nerd on paper.

Onto preferences :

PARLI:

Quick PS: I went 5-0 at my first HS Parli tournament and dropped my first out round, but I also dabbled in college debate which is basically all parli. Paradigm is now a lot more relevant.

Before Round:

Please don't write on whiteboards and chalkboards, Tab hates that and they'll get angry with the debaters and judges that let it happen. I'll ask for names and school eventually.

If you're going to be citing evidence, I just need name of publication and date. The author would be nice (if there is one listed), but the other 2 are bare minimum. Please try to get an author tho.

If there is anything I can do to make your experience in debate more comfortable, do not hesitate to let me know. Everyone should be having fun and feeling included!

NOTE: Citing evidence from UCSD gets you +0.5 speaker point per evidence. Good luck lol. And can't say "UCSD". Gotta say "The University of California, San Diego".

During Round:

I really don't need to know what school you're from or who you are at the top of a constructive, AGAIN. I don't need to hear "Thanks for being here". I'm getting paid and its an honor. Any mention is -2 speaks and I'll have to call your mom to tell her to pick you up from school.

I default to net benefits as a framework. Only bring up a framework if you're gonna introduce something spicy for me.

PoI's happen after the first minute and before the last minute of the speech (apparently no protected time for NPDI...), and the exchange should take only a few seconds. I believe it is ok to refuse WITHIN REASON, but debate is about having a discussion and discussion only happens when everyone can talk. If you reject a PoI, expect to get rejected by the other team.

ON THE TOPIC OF PoIS: PLEASE ASK A GOSHDARNED QUESTION. Don't try to ask the other team for a response on a fact that you wanted to cleverly pull up early in round, and then follow with "how do you feel about this?". It hurts. Ask the question, get new info, bring up new things in a constructive please.

PoO's will be referred to the NPDA base rules and tourney rules that will be open on my computer at all times.

Extend, frontline, weigh. All the good stuff. I will visibly show you if I believe what you are saying. On this note, if your opponents weigh and you don't, you're screwed. Make it clear what part of STOMP you use, and if no one weighs that just means I have the liberty to use my own noggin to make the connections. You might not like my priorities in life.

I will vote off of Ks/theory/T, make sure to explain them clearly (yes, I have shifted in my ways).

Cps are dandy. I don't buy condo tho.

I'm not timing (speeches or prep). It's up to you guys to time yourselves and make sure your opponents don't give a 15-minute rebuttal.

About speaking pace, if you want to speak a lil fast, that's totally fine. However, make sure that both the opponents can understand you (if they tell you to slow down, do it) and make sure that I can do it. Anything I don't catch ends up dropped. I make an exception for volume, I'll give you 3 chances, so speak at a normal to loud volume please.

I'm all for tag teaming, I used to hate it but a man grows.

Since this is Parli, evidence voting is a little different. I'm still tech>truth, but I also enjoy myself a cup of solid facts and logic to destroy your opponent. I'm not expecting full frontlines for every piece of evidence in the round.

If it boils down to it, I default neg. The reason for doing so is because Neg advocates for the status quo, and Aff's job is to convince me something needs changing.

As long as you respect me, the opponents, the debate environment, and have a good time, your speaks will be good(28+). 27.9 and below is reserved for the naughty kids.

I love knocking the desks (if you all do). I don't know what it means, but it's fun.

ALSO: anything that makes me laugh, and I mean ANYTHING, will net you bonus speaker points.

After Round:

I will give RFDs, so stay if you wish. I might be gathering my thoughts after the round however so give me a moment to write things down, press submit on tab, and then I'll begin. You can also ask questions GIVEN WE HAVE TIME.

I'm not a hand shaker. I think my hands are disgusting.

If there are any questions, feel free to ask away. If I'm running late, debate questions can be sent to my email at bliu8923@gmail.com. Title it "DEBATE: TEAM NAME, ROUND NUMBER, EVENT" followed by any questions or concerns in the body. I'll get to it when I can.

PF:

Before Round:

If I'm running late with another round, do the coinflip outside so you're ready when you come in. I'm not going to be a stickler here.

Preflows before round, please.

During Round:

I really don't need to know what school you're from or who you are at the top of a constructive. I don't need to hear "Thanks for being here". I'm getting paid and its an honor. Any mention is -2 speaks and I'll have to tell your mom to pick you up from school. (The phrase "Blanket of Thanks" will cost you a hefty -5 speaker points)

I will vote off of Ks/theory/T, but not a fan. I prefer case debate, so only run those things it if it makes the debate a more educational discussion. Especially in PF, I feel that this applies because there just isn't the time or the structure to fully develop all the components of a K and have solid offence. However, well run theory or Ts I'll buy.

About speaking pace, if you want to speak a lil fast, that's totally fine. However, make sure that both the opponents can understand you (if they tell you to slow down, do it) and make sure that I can do it. Anything I don't catch ends up dropped. I make an exception for volume, I'll give you 3 chances (because my hearing is somehow the worst in the world), so speak at a normal to loud volume please.

Don't be a jerk during crossfire. It's not fun for anyone to have to deal with 2 to 4 angry debaters yelling at each other, and it'll cost you major speaker points. I don't flow crossfire either, so bring it up in a later speech. I will allow you to use grand crossx time as prep if both parties agree to it. It's been getting useless anyway.

Extend, frontline, weigh. All the good stuff. I will visibly show you if I believe what you are saying. I'm a fan of STOMP and I'll immediately know what you're weighing if you mention it, just try to explain other impact calc a bit more please.

I'm a fan of the 2-2 second rebuttal. I think that first summary is definitely at a disadvantage and the 2-2 rebuttal allows for more discussion on relevant arguments. First summary does not need to extend defense, but second summary does.

As for defaulting Neg, I'm a little more lenient in PF because I feel that some resolutions have Neg in a state of advocacy as well. That being said, this rule is dependent on resolution.

ALL EVIDENCE MUST HAVE AUTHOR (if no author, then publication), DATE(at least the year). If I don't get these things, consider it thrown out. I also disregard evidence that has citations after. Please cite before you actually read the article to let me flow easier.

I think PF has been about being more appealing to lay judges, so I consider speaking a little more in my calculation of speaker points. However, effectiveness of argumentation will still carry a bulk of the weight. Speaks start from 28 (I like to be nice) and move up/down from there.

After Round:

I will give RFDs, so stay if you wish. I might be gathering my thoughts after the round however so give me a moment to write things down, press submit on tab, and then I'll begin.

I'm not a hand shaker. I think my hands are disgusting.

If there are any questions, feel free to ask away. If I'm running late, debate questions can be sent to my email at bliu8923@gmail.com. Title it "DEBATE: TEAM NAME, ROUND NUMBER, EVENT" followed by any questions or concerns in the body. I'll get to it when I can.

Let's have a good time folks! Start early and speak often.

edited for toc

Overview:

I do not have a preference for any style of debate, but I no longer consider myself a "circuit" judge. When in doubt, assume I'm a traditional judge (as in: I like good case debate and I'm most familiar with it). I am not tabula rasa but I will evaluate any/all arguments as objectively as possible (exception: hate speech/exclusionary rhetoric). Ultimately,you should read what you think will win you the round. My original paradigm is included below for you to peruse.

If a team has made the round unsafe for you or has excluded you from the round then please call them out to the best of your ability. I have a commitment to the flow but debate equity is much more important. I also understand that there will be instances in which calling out your opponent is not feasible; if you feel comfortable doing so you can PM or email me and I'll contact tab/ombuds for further instructions (and will be mindful of confidentiality). No matter what happens, I'll try to be reasonable. I align w/David‘s paradigm the strongest on this front, which I've also linked for reference.

Details:

- Faster speeds are fine, assuming both teams are okay with it. I will call clear and slow if needed. However, I will not be happy if you spread out your opponent at a non-bid tournament in prelims - I may intervene if it is clearly impacting the quality of the debate. See the in-round equity stuff above.

- I will be annoyed if you "kick the lay judge" in elims (what if I was the lay judge??) but I won't intervene.

- For the purpose of the round you should assume I don’t know anything about the lit base of your kritik. I am not super comfortable with evaluating performances but I understand why they may be necessary.Please clearly define alternate FWs because otherwise I will not know how to evaluate!

- My default layering is t>fw>k>case. I am a bad theory judge when it comes to tricky stuffbut I am not anti theory as a whole. You will lose me with frivolous theory that isn't explained/warranted well. I'm not familiar with tricks, NIBs, IVIs, and the like. I have a low threshold for RVIs but an even lower threshold for responses to them. Pref a different judge if you love in depth theory debates because I won't be much help in terms of feedback.

- No stance on conditionality or any type of counterplan.

- I will not call for cards unless they're heavily contested, and also will not flow cross. Keep evidence disputes short - I'll interrupt if the disagreement is getting out of hand.

- I'm very generous with speaker points (29+). Obvious exceptions if you say something blatantly racist/homophobic/xenophobic/violently ad hominem to your opponents.

- I will disclose in prelims if all teams ask/agree. Oral RFDs will be short because I'm more coherent in writing.

- Ask me for my email before the round if there is an email chain.

- I don’t have the best poker face, but I will try not to be distracting.

- Referring to me as "Judge" is fine. From my earliest paradigm: "don't shake my hand, a bow will suffice."

Try to have fun because I know how stressful this activity can be. Good luck and happy debating :-)

General Notes:

I did mostly circuit ld in HS and qualed to the TOC. I read mostly policy/theory args along with some k affs , so those are probably the style of args I'm most comfortable with.

Clarity >>>>> speed.you should go at a speed that is understandable and flowable. I'm pretty bad at flowing and its something you should be aware of.

I believe heavily in tech>truth so I'll vote for anything so long as its warranted.

I think condo, states cp, etc are generally good but can be convinced otherwise

FW v K Aff/Plan v K

I lean pretty heavily FW/plan against the critique, but I if the K is well explained and justifications for why being non t are won I'll still vote for it.

Theory

I default competing interps and drop the debater. I'm ok with paragraph theory. I'll vote off any shell/trick so long as its warranted.

Background: Debated 4 years Public Forum at Leland HS

My friend Brandon and I have pretty much the same judging standards so read his paradigm here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=Brandon&search_last=Liu

Not familiar with K's/Theory so please try not to run those

Please preflow before the round.

Be nice and have fun!

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

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.

Background: I debated for 4 years at Notre Dame High School. Debated for Cal for 1 year.

Judging: I try to be tab.

- Also if your rhetoric is sexist, homophobic, harmful in other manners - your speaks won’t be good. Just be respectful.

- I’ll try to give 27-29 for speaker points so impress me if you want more than that.

Debate:

Case Debate: that’s good

Cps: great. Don’t do time-delay or advantage cps - those are usually not good. Perms are fine.

Impacts: terminalize them - also, good link stories help me buy your impacts. If going for Nuclear War/Extinctions - please have a good link story. Also please do IMPACT WEIGHING IN YOUR VOTERS.

Ks: Please don’t. I can't keep up with the level of spreading that is usually required to execute a K properly.

Theory: It is fine. Just make sure you have good voters and how it operates in the round. If you’re running theory to skew your opponents out - reconsider. Also if you are going for theory, you should collapse to it in your voters.

Presentation

• Signposting will be helpful for everyone in the round
• Tagteaming is okay but be reasonable.
• POIs: useful: take at least 1 per speech?
• Speed: moderate speed; your opponents have the right to yell SLOW or CLEAR.

Other: Texts of CPS/Plans should be available to your opponents in round

Questions: Message me on FB or ask before the round.

P.S: Don’t try to shake my hand =) ... guess this doesn't matter now

*Format for this paradigm was copied from Steven Herman*

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

General stuff: (please read)

TLDR: I am a coach for Campo, and I debated for cal parli last year. I debated all 4 years in high school, doing lay PF for the first 2 years, then transitioning to national circuit PF and attended gold TOC in my senior year. I will vote on the flow. you have to have warrants in your arguments. I will reward you for giving me reasons to prefer certain arguments or impacts, and for articulating clear arguments, but I will still vote on dropped/conceded arguments first because it's the path of least resistance (smallest amount of judge intervention). If you have a specific question, either before or after the round, email me @ olive.ray.mccauley@berkeley.edu I'll do my best to answer.

1) I will vote on the easiest out. pls collapse and tell me what the easiest out is so that i don't have to do a lot of work and accidentally intervene.

2) It's my responsibility as a judge to make sure that I do my absolute my best to make a good decision, because, "You all put a lot of effort into this activity, and it's my onus to adjudicate every round thoroughly. If you feel like I'm failing to do this in any way, pls call me out." (bilal askari) That being said, I'm not perfect. I don't always get everything on my flow, so if something is particularly important, try to signal it's important by just saying "this is critical for xyz" or something along those lines.

3) Put warrants (reasons things happen) in your stuff. just do it. if I don't know how you get from point A to point B, I'm probably not going to vote on point B, even if you say it a lot and tell me it's really important. Do NOT ask me rhetorical questions, they are not reasons/warrants and I can't answer them without intervening with my personal opinion.

4) a lot of speed is fine.

5) Please extend things that you want to win on throughout the round, even if it's not super fleshed out, at least mention it. I'm definitely okay with things getting expanded in the back end of the round, For example, if you have arguments about climate change, and argue that climate change will cause extinction but you add an extra warrant or replace one in your last speech, and it's not a response to a new argument in the MO, I will not evaluate that new stuff. You might still win on the argument, but you won't win on the new stuff, so your time is probably better spent on saying things that *aren't new.*

6) points of order: I protect the flow, but I might not get everything. Points of Order are good, but should not be called for: weighing/comparative analysis, slight rephrasings, or contextualizations in terms of other arguments. Things you should call points of order for: new warrants, new examples, or a completely new cross-application to a conceded argument (unless it's weighing. I do not consider weighing new in the last speech of the round, its what I want you to do.).

7) speaks: they are super arbitrary, change a lot from judge to judge and are riddled with sexism, racism, xenophobia and a whole host of other things, so I default to 28s if you do a decent job literally saying words in round. Extra points are awarded based on how well you executed/utilized warrants in round strategically. If you do things that are offensive (ex: racist, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic) or are just generally mean/rude, I'll give you a 26, probably drop you, and talk to your coach. Don't be toxic.

9) Signpost. I flow on paper, so please let me know (ex: 'go to the "a" point on uniqueness') where your argument goes, otherwise, I might not evaluate it as a response to something you need to answer, because I just don't know where it goes.

Advantage/Disad:

I am most familiar with topical case debate. I think the uniqueness, link, impact structure is good for clarity, which is good for everyone in round. Don't try to be so tricky that your opponents can't understand you, because if it's that unclear, your judge (me!) probably won't either.

Your uniqueness decides the direction of links (aff: things are bad now, affirming makes them better, neg: things are good now, affirming makes them worse), so please make sure that your uniqueness corresponds with your links. I'm down for wacky arguments, just make sure you explain it to me and your opponents.

Counterplans are good, just make sure you prove they're competitive.

other than that, have good warrants! explain to me how the resolution and plan (your plan can be either the resolution or something more specific, both are fine) lead change the status quo, and why that's good or bad. You need offense at the end of the round, and you also need to weigh impacts *against* the other impacts in the round (not just: "this outweighs"). If both teams are weighing, but going for different mechanisms, I need clear reasons to prefer one weighing mechanism over the other. Please spend time on this, because if it comes down to scope vs. magnitude I don't really know what you want me to do.

Terminalize your impacts! if there isn't a clear reason why to prefer a clear weighing mechanism, I probably will vote on whichever impacts I think are better terminalized (ex: if "global warming" outweighs on scope, but disease outweighs on magnitude because it kills people, and "global warming" isn't terminalized, I'll probably vote for disease because you show me how it affects people, while the other team doesn't).

At the end of the round, I'll vote on the easiest out: conceded arguments that are extended with warrants and weighed impacts, or whichever side does a better job of answering their opponent's responses and then extending their arguments.

Theory:

theory is fun. I know friv theory is popular, but i think it's a waste of time, and I have a lot of homework to do so i will probably be annoyed if you spend a lot of time on something like shoes theory. That being said, if you win it I will vote for you, I will just also be annoyed.

I evaluate theory first because the impacts are pre-fiat.

Please read your interpretation twice, so that I can get it on my flow.

please justify why i should evaluate theory based off competing interpretations vs. reasonability

Kritiks:

I like Kritiks, but don't assume that I can/will fill in warrants for you. My understanding of critical literature is relatively limited (I've read some Marx, Bentham, Benjamin, Adorno, Baudrillard, etc.), so just make sure that you're explaining things well, and that you have warrants for the claims that you make on any level of the K. Other stuff:

I am okay with K affs if that's your jam, but I'm not as good at evaluating them as I am at evaluating Kritikal negs.

If your K is complicated, it's probably good for everyone in the round if you read a brief thesis that summarizes your argument so I know (and your opponents know) what's going to happen in-round.

Links of omission are links if and only if you tell me specifically how omission reifies or strengthens the system you seek to critique. (ex: "misidentifying the root cause" is only a link if you tell me how misidentification does xyz to strengthen the system by masking how it causes harm or something like that)

perms are a test of competition. If you have stuff built into your K about why the other team can't perm, please provide warrants (ex: "no perms in a methods debate" is not a warrant -- you have to explain why there are no perms in a methods debate)

have structure in your K, so: thesis, framework, links/harms, impacts, alternative/advocacy, and solvency.

abt me:

Background:

I did Classic debate in Minnesota during my freshman year of high school, which is genuinely the most lay form of debate ever. I then transitioned to Public Forum for my remaining 3 years of high school debate, but I was only really good for the last two years. I did National Circuit PF, qualified and competed at 2018 nationals (went 7-5, didn't break, nothing special) and went to ToC in 2019, last year (again, didn't break, nothing to see here lol). I debated for cal parli last year, and i am a coach at CHS.

Good luck, and happy debating!

email chain —-> amedinazambrano@gmail.com

** Head speech and debate coach at Torrey Pines HS, I am currently competing in CEDA for Southwestern and I have 3 years of parli/LD experience prior. If you have specific questions about literature bases I’ve read or are familiar with; just send me an email and I’ll get back to you. If not, ask before the round or just read it and explain it to me. Read my entire paradigm if you can, otherwise scan for the bold text for the “Reading My Paradigm during Prep Time,” version.

1. I'll vote on anything (so long as it's not morally abhorrent). I am not going to create an exhaustive list of every morally abhorrent position but trust me, if your arg falls under this category you will be able to tell via my facial expressions in round.

2. I have a lower than average threshold on Theory. I’m biased towards potential abuse being enough but a case can definitely be made for a proven abuse burden. With a few exceptions I typically defer to a framework of competing interpretations unless told otherwise so tell me otherwise. If you’re deliberately spreading someone out of a round, I am likely to pick up their speed procedural regardless of who is winning the standards debate. Inclusivity and access are important. If it’s egregious, I’ll drop you on sight.

3. K debates are cool coming from either side. FW is a valid strat v Kaffs.

4. I don't have strong feelings for or against any specific type of counterplan. Just shoot your shot and be ready for the theory debate.

5. I think turns are very underused, while also being very under-explained, "straight" turns probably need to be paired with an argument on the uniqueness level otherwise they are functionally defence but with that being said, the opposing team needs to do that work in round.

6. There’s a really good chance I may have to intervene if you don’t tell me what I’m voting for in rebuttals (you probably dont want this) so git gud and do the explaining. Your rebuttal should write my RFD. Tell me about what impact scenario beats the other team’s. Give me framing and calculus. PLEASE. Whether it be the theory level or the link level or thesis level or alt solvency, whatever. Why are you winning this round? If you’re right, you’ll know it.

7. Pls remember that your framework can determine how (if at all) your arguments are received and interpreted.

8. Collapse.

9. I’m super down to have a faster than normal debate. You probably won't be able to lose me from speed alone but pls be as Clear as you can. If I am judging you in an ev. based format I care much less but I’m gonna ask that you slow for tags or send me a copy of the speech doc. (amedinazambrano@gmail.com)

10. Pls don’t make me judgekick a plan or theory shell. Tell me what to do with it, Bc you’ll be mad when I vote on the perm or rvi that was left unresolved. If you make shadow extensions from something said earlier that’s chill.

11. Abusing Power Dynamics will not win you this round. I like a sassy debate, I love seeing two close friends hash out a tough round but both opponents must be on the same page. If you’re a guy shouting down a girl in cross ex Bc you think it’s “dominating” or any other form of “machismo,” to put someone else down, I will tank your speaks and have a hard time voting for you and I will probably drop you. Ask for pronouns, names, etc. Also time yourself. I should be able to trust y'all.

12. Partner to Partner comm is fine but make sure your partner wants the help. Pls don’t control your partners speech time, I will not flow what the partner says, you gotta say it.

13. Have fun and feel free to ask me any questions about things I should be comfortable with in your round, Bc remember, it’s your round. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

PS: Shouts to Khamani Griffin from whom I stole the format for this paradigm.

Background

My name is Rishabh Meswani, a former high school debater, and a UC Berkeley alum.

*Generally prefer less theory type debate*

Kritks: I am most likely not going to vote on Kritiks. I understand how they work, and you are free to run one, but I would much prefer a debate focused on the topic, using evidence, and reasoning. You would have to be extremely convincing to win on a Kritik.

Speaking: Speed is fine, but be reasonable. It is in your best interest if I am able to understand and write down all your arguments properly.

Other than that, off-time roadmaps are great, focus on terminalizing impacts, have clear and powerful voter issues, utilize evidence, and be respectful to your opponents.

Looking forward to some great debates :)

Let me know if you have any questions - you can reach me at rishabh@fremontdebateacademy.org.

I'm also the CEO & Co-Founder of a non-profit called Fremont Debate Academy, and have been running it with my team for the past 7 years.
Here is a quick description of the non-profit:

Fremont Debate Academy (FDA) is an international 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with a mission to create a debate & civics program in every school and every district across the world. Over the past ~7 years, our team of over 200+ has impacted ~5000 students, has programs scheduled in 19 states & 8 countries for this fall, and is training teachers from Teach For America and Broward County (Florida)! Our volunteer team has aggregated 20,000+ volunteer hours, and FDA is a certifying organization for the Presidential Volunteer Service Award (PVSA).

If you're interested in a leadership opportunity as a high schooler or college student, please reach out! Would love to discuss more or answer any questions.

Background

I came from a high school parli and pofo background and am a current member of the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed for 3 years, however my successes were typically found in IEs (Informative, Expository, Advocacy). As a debater I competed exclusively in case debate, but I’ve had a decent amount of exposure to basic Ks (cap bad, state bad) and Ts (fairness/education). A lot of my understanding of debate has come from Congress (legislation submission) and High School Parli/Pofo case construction which may leave a noticable blindspot to the niche aspects of parliamentary debate (Ks).

General Issues

• 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.

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for 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.

• I will not accept affirmative plans that run the resolution "as is". Include in plan legislation the (function of legislation / agent(s) responsible for carrying out / funding for the project / time period it will go into effect). There may be exceptions to this with respect to an odd resolution, (DOJ or SCOTUS actors), but more than likely if it is USFG, make an elaborate plan.

• I will not vote for the negative absent a CP if negative concedes the status quo is bad.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice if you will be arguing them. 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'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.)

CP

• Happy to vote on CP if it is specific

• Include (function of legislation / agent(s) responsible for carrying out / funding for the project / time legislation will go into effect) into CP

• Please hand the written copies out or articulate the CP clearly

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m a big fan of the politics DA. That being said, the more you can contextualize your argument to the round the greater weight that I will give it. Specific and substantial case debates are perfect

Theory

• I am moderately comfortable evaluating the theory debate, but if one provides a clear/stable interp text that is sufficiently articulated for the opposing team to clash with, I am happy to vote on theory.

K

• I'm reluctantly open to K debate, but without a sufficient explanation of the literature and how the opponents link, I will default to the side arguing case debate assuming they respond with a generic T.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me.

• If you make a single argument that advocates Stalinism specifically (Marxist-Leninism is okay) in a positive light without the appropriate consideration of past harms, I will make the threshold for your win unbelievably high. My parents are refugees from the former Soviet Union and Stalinist-revisionism actively hurts the debate space for Ukrainian-identifying individuals. This will be the time where I intervene as a judge into the consideration of the ballot.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I have little experience in evaluating and responding so I will likely sympathize with the team responding in opposition to the identity/narrative argument (assuming it isn't self-evidently problematic;racist, sexist, etc).

TL;DR

Debate is a game. Run whatever you want, just win it on the flow. Hit me with your new K, some frivolous theory that you’re worried other judges won’t buy, or literally anything else. Speaks based on execution of strategy.

Background

I'm a recent grad of UC Berkeley who debated in NPDA (tech parli), and now I coach the college team Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley, as well as the high school team at Campolindo HS. My partner Ryan Rashid and I won all three nats in NPDA my junior year, but I have next to no experience outside of parli (just some high school PF and lay LD), so I'm relatively unfamiliar with LD and policy norms. I did and teach pretty much all the stylistic things—equal amount of case, theory, and Ks. I love writing K links, collapsing to tix/elections DAs, and prepping clever T shells courtesy of shoddy resolutions. (The last one is kind of a joke, but also not really.) Point is, I have no preference for what you read, please just do what you're best at. I'd rather see a good K debate with quality clash than a bad case debate, and vice versa.

General note: My philosophy on debate has been primarily shaped by Trevor Greenan, Brian Yang, Ryan Rashid, June Dense, Will White, and Lila Lavender.

Kritiks

- If you're in a hurry you can skip this section—read whatever K you want lol, I don't pick favorites

- My background in academics and debate leans slightly more toward sociology than pomo. I've taken courses (and written Ks) about critical refugee studies, settler colonialism, anthropocentrism, etc., but have yet to truly grasp more than the barest bones of Bataille, for example. That being said, I definitely have experience with pomo—I've read/collapsed to Buddhism, Barad, Foucault, Nietzsche, etc. and competed against Lacan more times than I can count (shout out to the Rice team for that one). So feel free to read pomo if that's your thing, just be a tad gentler with me and don't assume I've read/heard allll the terminology before

- I'm a hoe for really well-warranted links that are specific to the aff and have imbedded DAs/solvency deficits. Also detailed and specific reasons why you solve the aff (if that's an arg you like to go for), either in the impacts or on the alt

- Theses can be helpful for more complex Ks, but def not necessary for your generic cap shell. I often write Ks that draw from multiple lit bases, and for me, a thesis creates a more cohesive story for something that can be kind of frankenstein in nature

Theory

- I love theory. I've been told I have a low threshold for frivolous theory (probably a consequence of too many rounds with Ryan and Brian), but my favorite is topicality, or any other interps that are very specific to the resolution/Aff. If it's clear that your interp had to be written during the 2 minutes before the LOC, that's my jam. Ofc you can read generics too, I'll just be slightly more bored and slightly less impressed

- MO and PMR theory will be an uphill battle with me, the latter most of all because it can't be contested by the other team, which makes my job so very hard, and I am lazy. But if the abuse is truly egregious and didn't occur until the MG/block, or if it's a matter of rhetorical violence, read the new arg and I'll do my best to evaluate it. But please weigh the new shell against the other team's remaining offense

- MG theory is fine, I read it all the time, but I'm also comfortable rejecting it if the Neg wins arguments for why it's bad or in-evaluable

- I don't need proven abuse under competing interps (it's about what your interp justifies, not what you actually did)

- Text vs. spirit of the interp should be debated in-round, and I'll evaluate under whichever is won. If somehow it's relevant but completely unmentioned by either team, I'll default to text over spirit

- I default to competing interpretations, but I'll use reasonability if you win args as to why I should AND if you have a briteline for it, cuz I don't feel like intervening. For example, a briteline (that I think works relatively well) is that I should evaluate whether the aff interp is good or bad based on all the offense-defense arguments read about it, and decide theory based on that, regardless of whether there's a counter-interp text. You could have a different briteline, but either way, explicitly tell me what it is, because "evaluate theory using reasonability" means different things to different people. I would prefer not to treat it as just a gut check, but if you don't define it, that's what I'll assume you mean

- I think theory is an RVI if and only if you tell me that it is, provide warrants, and then win that arg

- I default to drop the arg, although drop the arg sometimes = drop the debater, like for T. But obviously, reading "drop the debater" with even just one uncontested warrant is sufficient for me to change this default

- I didn't do circuit LD, so explain slightly more to me the definitions/implications of buzzwords that aren't as common in parli. The best example I can think of is semantics vs. pragmatics: I NOW know what they both mean, but I did NOT a year ago, and that made it difficult for me to render a decision in favor of blippy semantics first args in NPDI finals. Still read arguments like that if you want, just define and implicate them out, don't assume that I know all the things

Case

- I enjoy niche disads, like a hyper-specific tix scenario, or a biod disad about endangered turtles that live near where the plan happens. These can be hard (or impossible) to find though, depending on the res, so don't sweat

- I also definitely understand the value of tried and tested generics - I read a lot of backlash DAs and consult CPs, and inv con, so it's okay to read that too. Read whatever you think is strategic for the rez

- I enjoy technical CP debate. PICs are fun unless I'm read a shell that tells me otherwise. Same thing for consult CPs, delay CPs, agent CPs, etc.

- Perms on CPs. Make them. Any perm is fine, unless the other team gives me a reason why it's not

- In the absence of explicit magnitude/probability/timeframe/etc. weighing, I default to using only strength of link. In other words, I’m more inclined to vote for arguments that are dropped or comparatively under-covered, but you can prevent this by telling me why your impact is high [magnitude/probability/etc.], and why [magnitude/probability/etc.] comes first

- I love clever case strats that exploit a mistake the other team has made, like collapsing to a straight turn or a double turn. Don't be afraid to do something "risky" like that, I can follow along

Everything Else

Here's some miscellaneous beliefs that I have about debate and will utilize by default; however, I'm willing to evaluate otherwise, even in the opposite direction, as long as you give me sufficient reason to in-round:

- I think unconditionality means you *technically* have to defend the advocacy throughout the round, but that could include conceding defense so the sheet doesn't matter anymore

- I believe that perms are a test of competition, not an advocacy

- I'm not game for shadow extensions that aren't at least mentioned in the MG/MO, even if the argument is conceded. In other words, I think the member speeches should have to extend every piece of offense their team intends to collapse to

- I will do my best to protect during the LOR and PMR, but I don't trust myself to catch everything and neither should you, so call points of order please. I'll rule on all of them immediately, to the best of my ability, because you usually need to know my stance for the sake of the rest of the speech

- New weighing is fine in the LOR/PMR, but make sure it's actually weighing, not sequencing or anything else. E.g., saying "fairness is more important than education because debate could survive without education, but not without fairness" is acceptable weighing, but saying "fairness is more important than education because it's the internal link to education and skews the round" is a sequencing argument that should be read before the rebuttal speech

- I think condo's p dope, so run however many off you want, but also I'll drop you if the other team wins a condo bad shell

- I think dispo is condo in a suit, but if you can get a we meet out of it, go off sis. And if you think they might use their dispo status to meet your condo shell, preempt that in the violation please

- Presumption flips neg, unless the neg reads a CP/alt, in which case it flips aff

- I find “truth over tech” arguments incoherent and self-refuting; “truth” in debate is only ever arrived at through evaluation of the flow (or judge intervention, which I will not do), so in order to convince me that truth outweighs tech, you’d have to win that claim via the tech flow…which seems to indicate that tech still > truth

- I will drop your ass for racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. rhetoric or behavior

- Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. [Added March 29th, 2023.] Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- To pick you up on an IVI, I need reasons why that IVI outweighs all the impacts your opponents are going for

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to zmoss@bishopodowd.org

Short Paradigm:

tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice

It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method and offense against their weighing method.

I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.

Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."

Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.

I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.

Long Paradigm:

I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.

Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.

Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.

Topicality

To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.

Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).

I debated policy for multiple years in high school and college. I'm tab and very comfortable with speed, but I have much more experience judging policy than parli.

Some random musings on various types of argument:

Framework: I will default to util in the absence of an alternative framework, but I am far from wedded to it. You will have a hard time convincing me to vote for frameworks that entirely exclude any form of K.

Theory: I am relatively wary of vague fairness/ground claims in theory arguments, and typically prefer arguments grounded in terms of the role of the ballot/education. As an example, if you are saying the States CP is bad, you will have a hard time winning on "it's abusive because nothing links to it." I would much rather hear arguments that no individual actor has the power to compel 50 independent state actions, and why that matters. Do not assume that I am overly familiar with the details of theory arguments totally unique to parli, so err on the side of more explanation there.

K: I very much enjoy a good K debate. I am probably familiar with the literature surrounding your argument, but please ask if you're reading anything particularly obscure.

DA/Case: Nothing much to say here. Please give effective impact calculus.

If you have any questions, please ask me before the round.

This is just a basic overall paradigm, feel free to ask me more specific questions during a round.

I have experience competing in college for the last few years in Parli and LD and I.E's. I've judged for the last few years of high school policy, LD, PF, Congress, some I.E's, and Parli.

I'd like to consider myself a flow judge meaning that I will examine every argument and evaluate the debate based on what is on the flow.

That being said I usually follow the rules of each syle of events whenever I'm judging unless I'm told otherwise in the debate as for examples why rules are bad.

In terms of speed/spreading, I'm ok with it since I can keep up with it. That being said I care more about accessibility into the round, meaning if you're going too fast for your opponents and they try clearing you or telling you to slow down, it is probably a good idea to try and adjust your speed in those situations.

I'm open to any type of argument. My only preference is that arguments are impacted out in the round. I'm a lazy person by nature and like to do the minimum amount of work, meaning I prefer when teams tell me exactly where and what to vote for on my flow. Don't assume I know which arguments you are going for at the end of the debate. I also tend to protect against new arguments in the final speeches. Additionally, treat me as someone who has no sense of direction and needs to be given clear instructions to any destinations that you need me to go to.

And finally, don't be jerks to your opponents.

So the bottom line is to do whatever you'd like to do, have fun and throw in a joke or 2, even make references to anime, European football, or anything for that matter.

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

Hey y’all! I am currently an open debater for San Francisco State. I mostly like to run k’s and theory, I like to challenge to norms and structure as much as possible. So feel comfortable running any k's or being creative if I'm your judge. I don’t think that debate is a game, and I’ll prefer it if you don’t treat it as one, but you still have to frame the round for me. I love to hear rounds where the impacts aren't just nuclear war or extinction, but real life issues or something interesting. I wanna hear what you have to say, so explain your arguments, and I also don’t want to do the work on the flow for you. Most importantly I value clarity over speed, but if your spreading is clear then go for it.

Arguments:

Personal opinions aside, I’ll vote on who does the most work on my flow and the ROB/ROJ.

T/FW- I don’t like T’s, please don’t make me vote on it. I will do everything I can not to, so respond to it and give a good counter-interp. It's your job as the debater to explain to me what the round is about and how I should be framing the debate round.

K/Performance- I love k’s, but you have to defend your alt. I’d love to see whatever you come up with, but run what you know best and feel comfortable doing. Performances are great, I love to see them. I mostly just want to see you do what you want, so don’t just run a k to make me happy

Plans- I always appreciate a barely topical plan, and I’ll love it if you can get me to laugh. Of course I’ll vote on a topical plan, but I’ll enjoy it less. Give good advantages, and I need some real impacts.

Give me a good ROB/ROJ, extend it, and meet it. Or give me a counter one. Try to keep a clear(ish) debate, run what you want and what you’re good at, and please be nice. I really won’t want to vote for you if you’re rude in round.

TL;DR:

I'm mostly flow, but I'm rusty on the very jargon-y bits of debate. I'm familiar with Ks/theory/some philosophy arguments and very open to them - I'll vote for anything as long as I can follow it and it's warranted well. I'm fine with speeds considerably faster than conversational speed, but I'll probably miss some arguments if you full-on spread. You might want to read the very last point.

Longer version:

I did debate for 3.5 years in high school (two years of LD and a year and a half of parli), but I've been out of the game for two years now.

I'll try my best to be completely tabula rasa, but I don't think it's possible to treat debate with 100% objectivity. I won't bring any of my own beliefs, opinions, or bits of knowledge into the round (I'll believe Unicornifornia is the 51st state if you tell me to), but I will use my own judgment to an extent when evaluating arguments.

These are the steps I usually follow when trying to make a decision. Walking me through these steps will make it much easier for me to vote for you:

1) Determine the framework under which I should be looking for offense. This could be net benefits in a case debate, theory standards, K framework, or LD-style philosophical arguments (which imo could be utilized pretty effectively in parli actually.) If multiple of these are operating at the same time, I'll look for offense on several different layers.

2) Determine relevant impacts under the framework. If you weigh impacts and assess link chains in your last speech, that'll make my job much much easier. Absent those kind of arguments, I'll generally employ my own judgment to compare the likelihood of various link stories and the magnitude of various impacts. In this calculus I'll consider turns and defensive arguments made throughout the round as well.

Debate Philosophy:

I think of debate as a chess-match between teams. Along those lines,

1) I'm not a huge fan of performative Ks / arguments that view debate as a platform for social justice, although I'll vote for them if they're done convincingly. I'm really, really not a fan of arguments that hinge on your own identity as part of some minority group.

2) On the other hand, I'm all for "troll"-y, somewhat abusive arguments. Abusive framework arguments, frivolous theory, and narrowly-worded plans/cps are all fine by me.

Argumentative Preferences:

These are defaults that I employ when trying to evaluate arguments. All of these can be easily overrided if you give a warrant.

1) I will generally prioritize analytical arguments over empirics if they seem "fluffy" to me. Numbers are great, but if your only defense to an argument is a randomly-sourced statistic that's not very well-warranted, I won't weigh it heavily.

2) If you and the other team disagree over a fact, I will use my own judgment / prior knowledge to determine the truth.

3) Theory:

a. I view theory on an offense-defense paradigm like all other arguments. A shell is offense. A counter-interp can be defense to that shell, or it could be offense of its own. There can be blocks/turns on shells like there are on any other argument.

b. Along those lines, I think theory is an RVI (reverse-voting issue) if you're losing offense on your own shell (i.e. the other team successfully turns your shell. RVIs on terminal defense (like we-meets) are harder to buy but I'm open to arguments for those as well.

4) Kritiks:

a. I'm familiar with common Ks, but you'll want to give pretty clear warrants if you're reading something more complicated than that.

b. I have a low threshold for poorly explained frameworks and weak alts.

5) Speed:

You can definitely go quite a bit faster than conversation pace, but I'm not great at flowing a full-on spread. This *usually* isn't a huge issue in parli rounds but I'll yell "slow" or "clear" if I have to.

6) Miscellaneous defaults:

a. K comes before theory.

b. Fairness > education

c. Probability > magnitude for impacts

d. Perms are a test of competition

e. I'll try my best to protect the flow during final speeches, but I'm not perfect at it, and you POOing could help me out there.

Speaker Points:

1) Taking POIs is generally a good idea. If you're reading something super dense and you refuse to take any questions, I'll dock your speaks significantly.

2) Make clear/well-organized arguments. Grouping things together for organization is great.

3) Strategically kicking arguments is great.

4) Being sassy is great. Being overly rude/aggressive is not.

5) I'll give you a 30 if you give all your speeches in a British accent (and you're not actually British.)

Experience:

I competed in Parliamentary Debate for a couple of years in high school and now am a third-year member for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley. I love debate for its creativity, diversity of arguments, and critical thinking.

Quick Notes:

- I will flow your round. Unless otherwise convinced, I will vote for the team that has the most potent and persuasive offense on the flow

- Please, please, please collapse on the negative to one position. I have made mistakes before on the flow in messy rounds when the negative does not collapse and it makes me sad. I do not actively seek out judge intervention, but it might happen when the flow gets too messy.

- Also, please explain the implications of you buzz words/taglines. Recently, I have found myself voting against technical debate (much to my chagrin) because I do not think buzz words have been adequately contextualized to the round. It is much like fleshing out an impact. I want to see the entire reasoning behind the argument (e.g. it is not sufficient to say "perm" without a perm text or it is not sufficient to say "frames them out" without specific interactive analysis).

- It is the burden of the affirmation to do something besides the status quo (make offense); if neither team has offense by end of round I will most likely begrudgingly vote negative

- Default Roll of Ballot (ROB): Vote for the team with the best post-fiat policy option

- Default Roll of Judge (ROJ): Vote for the team that best functions under the ROB

- Default hierarchy of arguments: theory > kritik > case (but again, this is all determined by how the debate round is framed and is thus highly variable)

- Default framing of impacts: magnitude > probability > timeframe (yet again, this is all determined by how the debate round is framed and is thus highly variable). I also will default to proximal impacts first. Also, if I perceive rhetorical violence in round against me or a participant, not only will I dock speaks but I will also (probably) vote you down.

- My default treatment of permutations are as tests of competition and not advocacies

- My default framework of theory is competing interpretations. I will also default to potential abuse before proven abuse.

- I protect against new arguments in the final two speeches

- If I say "clear" it is because I cannot understand you. If I say "slow" it is because I cannot flow as fast as you are talking. Feel free not to change your behavior, but be wary that I may miss some of your arguments (and I might consider arguments later as shadow extensions to my flow and disregard them)

On the meat of debate:

Plan: Please have an explicit text and solvency; the more clear, the better. Reading plan text twice is a smart strategy if one decides to spread.

Advantage/Disadvantage: The more fleshed out the better. If it is separated into uniqueness, links, and impacts, it makes my job much easier. Be sure uniqueness is flowing in the right direction for your links, the links are sturdy, and the impacts are terminated (well-developed).

Theory: When running theory, be organized (interpretation, violation, standards, and voters or some equally viable system). I am okay with voters being cross-applied. Be careful with the wordings of your interpretations. Responses to theory should be organized ("we meets," counter interpretations, counter standards, and standard defense or some equally viable system).

Kritiks: Kritiks are the heart and joy of debate. That said, if you read an affirmative kritik, be sure you have a clear out against theory arguments. On negative kritiks, make sure that you have a clear framework, links, impact, and alternative or equally viable structure. If some parts are missing, it will be difficult to win the kritik. (Though, I may be a bit of a hack on critical arguments, I will still try to limit the backfilling I do).

Counterplan (CP): Make sure the CP is well fleshed out and explicit on why the affirmative cannot permutate (textual competition is a weak argument and not very convincing; try to look for functional competition or net benefits to the CP).

Speaker Points: They will probably be between 26-30

TL;DR

I debated high school parli for all four years and was pretty competitive. I'll put basically any argument you say on the flow, I ran my fair share of weird stuff over the years. If you convince me that the weird argument is important and your opponent doesn't address it, you can win on it. I will always default to case first, unless you specifically explain why I should not. I'm comfortable with basically all theory, but less so with kritiks. You can still run K's and I'll still vote on them if you make it very clear that your impacts are relevant and your alt creates some solvency. More on this later. Generally, have fun and don't jargon/spread your opponents out of the round. I fully believe debate should be an educational activity and will maintain that in the round. If you're abusive or toxic, you will get dropped.

Case

To reiterate, I have a high tolerance for arguments that are more out there, as long as they are grounded in case. In general, I prefer case debate to theory debates because I believe parli should remain an educational activity. I want aff to specify plan texts, give me more than just the resolution as your position. For Neg, use CP's as opportunity cost not a policy. I don't want you to read advantages for the CP because that's counterintuitive to your purpose as the Neg team. I love to see argumentation on the link and internal link level, so please emphasize those in your responses. In general, I am okay with assuming that general logic and common sense exists in round, so I don't need everything to have super explicit warrants. I will almost always default to logic that explains why a statistic is wrong over the actual stat. For your last two speeches, please do voting issues. Make me want to vote for you by being organized.

Theory

I did a good amount of theory in HS, but I never enjoyed it. I think it detracts from the actual purpose of parli. That being said, if your opponent is clearly breaking the rules of debate, by all means, run theory and I will vote on it a priori. Have very clear interpretations and violations because if you can't tell me why it was specifically necessary for you to run T without getting excluded from the round, I will not weigh it as heavily you want me to.

K's

I don't think as high schoolers we ever have the real understanding to run proper critical arguments, so your K better be very very sound. If you run it super well, show that your alt has very real solvency, and can convince me that I should vote on it, I will. If you can't, please don't run one. Also, if you run a K, please tell your opponents that you will be doing something along those lines, a debate where one team has prepped for 3 weeks and the other has o prep is not fun for anyone to be a part of. Again, parli is an educational activity to learn about the world. Unless you absolutely can't, please stick to case.

General Speech

Talk fast or slow I don't really care. If you're too fast for your opponents and don't slow down, you will lose tons of credibility because I will assume you're too scared of your opponents actually hearing what you say. Please be respectful to each other. That being said, I have 0 problems with loud voices in round or yelling or anything of that sort. I get that you all get passionate and I am happy to see that so go for it.

Overall

have fun! debate is cool so enjoy it. Please don't shake my hand. If you have any questions, message me on fb.

PARLI

3x National Champion in 2021 (NPTE, NPDA, and NRR)

- I don't care about persuasion, I give better speaks for technical strategy and execution.

- I would rather you debate what you're most comfortable with, rather than over-adapting and reading something you aren't as familiar with

- 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.

Other Events

Background

I did high school LD for 3 years, and now I compete in NPDA at Berkeley. TL;DR, do whatever you want and I'll vote for whoever wins on the flow.

General Issues

- 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 (i.e. tech > truth).

- I think condo is good, so I'm perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies. That being said, I'm also more than happy to vote on condo bad if you win it.

- I don't believe in shadow extensions.

Theory

- I like theory

- I default to competing interps, drop the debater on T (drop the arg on most other theory), and no RVIs

- Weigh between your standards for me (i.e. why does limits outweigh ground)

Advantage/DA/CP

- I don't keep up with the news at all, so I'm very uninformed on current events. That being said, I don't think that really matters for LARP debates

- Have good warrant comparison and impact calc

- Overviews are greatly appreciated, especially if the round is messy

- No preference on CPs; I'll evaluate PICs, consult, alt actor, etc., but I'll also evaluate theory against them

Kritiks

- I'm familiar with more structural/material Ks, as opposed to pomo. If you're unsure about whether I'll know something, just assume I don't and explain well (overviews, please)

- I like seeing good links that are actually specific to the aff and have imbedded offense

- I have a high threshold for reject alts and links of omission

- K-affs are fine, but if you don't answer fairness skews eval properly, I probably won't vote for you

Phil

- I've been out of the activity for a while, and phil debates are non-existent in parli, so I'm definitely not up-to-date on any of the norms. But if it's your thing, I'll definitely try my hardest to properly evaluate it -- same with tricks

- Weigh between violations of the standard

Parli Paradigm

Background

Currently Washington HS head coach.

I did parli and LD in high school, NPDA and BP in college, and I've been a debate coach since 2012.

High school teacher - economics, government, history.

Pronouns - he

Approach to judging

- I vote for a team that has more offense in the end of the round; defense almost never wins rounds.

- I will typically vote on one specific argument which I come to believe is the biggest issue in the round rather than on a wholistic evaluation of your round performance. Use your rebuttal to tell me what that argument should be.

- If an argument could have been run out of the first constructive, don't wait until your second constructive to run it – this creates a truncated discussion of an argument. I will be sympathetic to PMR turns against new arguments coming out of the Opp Block. In short, each argument needs to be made on the first opportunity to make that argument.

- If there is new offense coming out of a second constructive which could not have been run out of the first constructive, I will cross-apply and weigh MOC arguments against PMR responses myself in order to offset the Gov getting the last word.

- I am not a fan of splitting the Opp Block, but I don’t think MOC and LOR should be identical. The LO doesn’t need to extend non-essential defense if the MO already made the responses. I give LOR some leeway on extensions: simply referencing an argument is fine, you don’t need to spend too much time extending MO warrants. In general, LOR should briefly extend chief pieces of offense and crucial defense and spend most of the time on big picture argument comparison.

- If an argument is unclear the first time I hear it, I won’t vote on extensions which clear it up.

- I do not require a Point of Order to strike a down a new argument. In a lot of cases, however, an argument is borderline new, and in these cases, I will typically give the speaker the benefit of the doubt unless a POO is called.

- I prefer that argument extensions extend the warrant, not just the tagline.

- I will not vote on blips. The best - though not the only - way to ensure your argument isn’t a blip is to structure it.

- I prefer arguments that rely on common knowledge and logic. If there is a factual dispute, I will resolve it using my own knowledge or, if necessary, Google.

Argument preferences

- I like positional cases. This means that the Gov should have a specific plantext for policy resolutions or a thesis for fact/value resolutions. I welcome specification theory on vague plans.

- I enjoy listening to critical arguments with a clear and realistic alternative made by debaters who have read the philosophy behind them. I resent Ks that are intentionally obscurantist and meant to confuse opponents who don't have a background in critical debate.
"Reject" alternatives are mostly dumb. I prefer critical arguments to contain policy alternatives. Reading a K does not exempt you from the need to engage with your opponents' arguments. I don't like lazy generic links (e.g. "their actor is the government, so they're capitalist!") – adapt your K to the specific issues discussed in the round, don't just regurgitate arguments you dug up from policy backfiles. Reading a K also does not exempt you from the need to make quality warrants - just because some French philosopher agrees with you does not mean that you are right.

- For offense coming out of the PMC to be unique, it has to link to the resolution. For offense coming out of subsequent constructives to be unique, it has to link to either the resolution or to something the other team said.

- I prefer arguments that do not hinge on the identity of the debater or of their opponent. People should not have to out themselves in rounds.

- I am open to arguments that theory should be a reverse voting issue if the team that introduced the theory argument loses the argument. I default to reasonability over competing interps.

- Unless there is a debate over the round framework, I default to net benefits – specifically, the terminal impacts of death, dehumanization, and quality of life.

- Counterplans are very strategic. I don’t think the Opp should be able to fiat alternative actors, though I won’t go so far as to intervene against that. I prefer counterplans to be unconditional, and I default to assuming that they are unconditional unless you explicitly state some other status right after reading the counterplan text. The same goes for other Opp advocacies.

Presentation preferences

- Moderate speed is fine if it is used to present more in-depth arguments, but using speed as a tool to exclude your opponents from the round is not okay. If you try doing that in front of me, you will lose. If you want to go fast, take a lot of clarification POIs. If your opponents are going too fast, yell "Clear!" If your opponents or judges yell "Clear!" you should repeat the sentence you said right before that, and then either start enunciating better or slow down.

- Slow down on advocacy texts (plans, counterplans, theory interps, et cetera). I prefer that you give your opponents a written copy of your advocacy text. Lack of a stable advocacy text is a recipe for a messy round.

- I have a strong aversion to unnecessary jargon and intentional obfuscation. If your use of jargon makes it difficult for your opponents to engage with your arguments, I will disregard your arguments even if I myself am familiar with the jargon you are using.

- I will flow each argument (advantage, disad, framework, et cetera) on a different piece of paper. When signposting, indicate clearly when you are moving on to a new argument. Tell me in which order I should arrange my papers in a roadmap; roadmaps are not timed. Do not include any information in your off-time roadmap other than argument order. Don't give PMC roadmaps.

- I prefer teams to take at least two POIs per constructive speech. On top of that, if the tournament doesn't allow POCs, you should take clarification POIs after reading an advocacy text, or you will open yourself up to various specification arguments.

- Please avoid whispering to your partner during your opponents' speeches - it can get very distracting. Instead, pass notes.

- Tag teaming should be kept to a minimum. Pass notes.

- Don't go over time in your speech. I stop flowing when the timer beeps. As soon as your opponent is done speaking, you should give a quick roadmap and then start your speech. Don't stall so that you can prep your speech.

- On parli decorum (pre-speech thank-you’s, shaking everyone’s hands after the round, etc) – I am not a fan. I won’t prohibit it, I just think it’s pointless.

About me: I was a former member of Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley, and ranked 3rd in the nation at NPTE. I used to be a public health major and now work in health care.

For Parli: Super down for spreading/speed, I'll clear or slow you if necessary but I seriously doubt I'll need to. I'm usually a K debater so I'm down to hear anything you want to read assuming it's not gross or prejudiced in any way. I'm cool with non-topical affirmatives, but I will evaluate FW-T in response, so be ready for that to play out. I also enjoy case debate if it's well fleshed out, and am more likely to prefer well-done or detailed affirmatives over generics. Theory is fine, I'll evaluate any theory you put forward. I default to competing interpretations unless you have specific warrants for reasonability; if you give me the warrants for reasonability, I'll absolutely evaluate that.

Tl;dr: I'm down for anything. It's your debate, not mine. I know some people say they're down for anything and really just want case debate, but bring me your crazy rounds and I'm very down to evaluate. I'm a flow judge that doesn't care about presentation unless your performance is specifically affective or you want me to evaluate your in-round rhetoric, so my speaks usually just hover around a 28.

PLEASE DON'T SHAKE MY HAND; not super down for that

Overview

I'm open to any argument, I protect against new args, speed is okay but tag args well, I evaluate kritiks, I most likely have a higher threshold on blippy theory, try to explain args well in collapse speeches and tell me how to weigh things especially if you went for a wide strategy

Background

I did 4 years of parliamentary debate in high school, qualifying for TOC my senior year. I am currently participating with Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley in college

General Notes

You don’t just win because they didn’t extend their ROTB. Implicate things, dropped points need to be implicated to win off of them. Don’t be racist or misgender people.

Speed, Delivery and Speaks

Feel free to go fast, slow and clear when asked and answer clarifying questions. I tend to give everyone 28-29 regardless of their performative delivery. I will definitely dock speaks if you say any racist or homophobic slurs or otherwise say an offensive argument. I may give 30 speaks to interesting strategies, well done performances read during a speech or anything else particularly interesting or educational in speeches. Tag teaming is fine.

Kritiks

I will evaluate kritiks and enjoy kritikal debate. I am not super familiar with a lot of of the more “pomo” K’s, so try to explain them well in the collapse speeches. Utilize the collapse speech well especially if you are running a more out there kritik or a wide strat, if thesis level claims are not explained and taglines not warranted I will most likely give much less credence in evaluating them even if they are completely dropped.

Theory

Tell me why fairness and education are important! I tend to have a higher threshold on theory. I think the k aff and other framework arguments can be weighed against framework T. I will most likely weigh frivolous theory less than other arguments. I default to competing interpretations.

Case

I really enjoy a well run case debate. Feel free to read plan inclusive/time delay/other cheat-y counterplans and conditional arguments, just be ready to respond to theory. I will presume normal ways and means if someone forgets to specify. Tell me how to weigh high probability low magnitude arguments against low probability high magnitude arguments. Do weighing, please tell me how to weigh your truck driver jobs impact against global warming extinction.

Weighing/Voters

I will protect new args if I catch that it is a new arg, point of orders help make sure that I don't miss if its a new argument. I consider shadow extensions new arguments (but am more likely to miss that they are new args). Please tell me how to weigh your impacts against the other arguments in the debate.

Note: Perfectly comfortable evaluating Traditional/Lay since I did that earlier in my career but don’t expect any protection against “progressive” args

Short: Two promises: (1) I can and will flow everything you say, (2) I hate intervention in all forms (e.g. argument and cognitive bias) - won't do it unless something actively violent occurs. I'm also a speaker point fairy.

Long: I started the national circuit LD program at my high school with my lovely partner Amrita Chakladar and now do NPTE/NPDA Parliamentary debate at Berkeley where I’ve won a couple college tournaments. I am very comfortable evaluating traditional policy style debate, K debate, and the clash between the two/everything in between. I regularly flex between big stick/util affs, soft-left, and K affs and DAs/T/CP/K on the neg. I have no strong opinions on the style of debate, just that the quality be high.

Advantage/DA - Good case debates make me happy. Don't skip any internal links on either aff or neg, do weigh impacts, and support all claims

CPs - Love clever and sneaky CPs but will definitely consider theoretical arguments

K - Strong links that indict the assumptions of the aff, probably won't vote off links of omission, not a huge fan of floating PIKs, perm pre-empts are good, framework is important and there needs to be comparison between praxis

Theory - Open to friv theory but lower thresholds for response, make sure to articulate voters and paradigm issues clearly

Speaks - Blanket 30s for attitude (not rudeness) and good tech, funny jokes about cal parli, or any tasteful movie reference (e.g. Inception, The Dark Night)

If you have any questions, I can be reached at harrisshadmany@berkeley.edu or on Facebook.

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.

Former LD Debater. K's are fine, speed is fine. Any dropped arguments will be flowed through with impacts (but can still be outweighed by other points).

Background: 4 years of high school parli at Prospect High School, now studying Bioengineering at Cal

TL;DR: Warrants & link stories are of utmost importance. Weigh your impacts! Probability > magnitude > timeframe. Theory > K. Do the Point of Order. Take questions. No need for handshakes. Roadmaps are off time. 2 POIs per constructive speech is a good average.

I'll vote on the flow – I don't believe anyone can be completely "tabula rasa," but for the sake of this activity, I'll try! I will consider any argument valid as long as it is warranted, and I will take the path of least intervention when it comes to my final evaluation of the round.

OK with speed as long as you do the obvious-- slow down for taglines, enunciate, etc. However, do not spread your opponents out of the round. Refusal to slow down if your opponents repeatedly yell "slow" or "clear" will most certainly hurt your speaks.

I have a pretty high threshold for procedurals/topicalities, so if you're trying to convince me your topicality is an a-priori issue, your in-round impacts & any potential abuse need to be very clearly articulated.

I'm a pretty big fan of a strategic, topical counterplan, case turns, or internal link takeouts. However, not a big fan of lazy perms being used as an advocacy rather than a test for competition.

Theory & Ks: I am open to theory and kritiks as long as they are done decently well (i.e. please don't run things you don't understand, be able to explain your arguments in simple terms & without buzzwords, no blip arguments, have case-specific links). If you can explain your advocacy properly without excluding your opponents, I will vote on it. Have good alts – if you're going to encourage me to use my ballot to "reject"/"embrace" something, have solid reasoning for what that's going to do. I am also down for narratives, as long as you're still giving me a way to evaluate the round.

Also, brownie points to you if you give me a copy of your advocacy text.

This obviously isn't comprehensive so feel free to ask more detailed questions before the round :)

Background

High School Varsity Parliamentary Debater at Prospect High School (2014-2018)

General

I am currently a junior in college who has plenty of experience in high school parliamentary debate. I am a flow judge, so be sure to explain your ideas and arguments clearly and effectively.

Speed/Spreading

I am familiar with and fine with spreading as long as your opponents are fine with it. Spreading should be used only in cases in which you have a lot of points to get through and not be used just to intimidate/confuse the opposing team.

Kritiks/Topicality/Theory

I am familiar with most kritiks and theory arguments in parliamentary debate. That being said, I will ONLY vote on Kritiks or theory if they are ABSOLUTELY necessary. In general, I like to see clean debates that stick to the intended format.

Tag Teaming

I am fine with tag teaming (passing notes or helping out with phrasing) as long as it is not too disruptive to the speaker and opposing team.

Miscellaneous

Please provide off-time roadmaps whenever possible. They are helpful to everyone as it helps keep the debate more organized. In general, have fun during the debate, but be respectful to your partner, opponents, and the judge. :)

Background

- Parli for 4 years (Evergreen Valley '17)

Case

- I will default to evaluating a debate on net benefits and through a comparative worlds paradigm

- Please tagline your arguments, and it would be even better if you signposted between each part of ULI

- Weigh your arguments. I don't have a clear preference between probability and magnitude, so just warrant out why I should prefer one over the other

Theory

- I will default to Competing Interps over Reasonability, but I'm open to hearing arguments why reasonability is better

- Frivolous theory will win you a round, but will cost you in speaks

- Please repeat your interp twice

- I prefer to vote on proven abuse, but I'm open to hearing arguments about potential abuse (ie: potential abuse of conditionality)

- I am open to hearing RVIs, especially if you feel theory was read as a time suck. However, please justify why theory should be an RVI and tagline your RVI as one

Kritiks

- You can read them on either side, just clearly explain your advocacy if you're reading a kritikal affirmative

- Pretty much only comfortable with capitalism kritiks so if you are going to read something else please explain your thesis clearly

- Please read specific links.

- Explain why voting for the alternative is specifically key in this instance

Speaks

- Speaks will reflect efficient use of time, clarity of argumentation, and strategic decision making. If you're explaining the same argument 4 times or not making good use of the block by simply repeating the 2NC, I will dock speaks

- If anyone in the room needs to tell you to clear (enunciate arguments) or slow (slow down your arguments) multiple times, I will dock your speaks

- Don't say racist/sexist/generally problematic things unless you want me to tank your speaks

- Please do not call any human being 'illegal' (part of above)

Miscellaneous

- No hand shakes are necessary, if you really feel the need to thank me a fistbump will suffice

- Off time roadmaps are encouraged for getting arguments in order, but please do not include content in them

- I think teams should take 1-2 POIs per constructive speech. If you say, "I'll get to you at the end if I have more time" and haven't taken a question yet, I am fine with allowing that question to be taken after the speech is up.

Fact Checks

- I don’t fact check evidence unless there’s a heavily contested piece of evidence or argument that a whole contention (or maybe the entire round) boils down to.

- I will also fact check upon request.

Background

My name is Owen, I did policy at La Costa Canyon for four years and I'm now on the parli team at Berkeley. I'm excited to judge y'all, here's the quick version of this paradigm.

- I've gone for policy arguments most of my debate career, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on Ks. Debate the way that you feel most comfortable.

- If your going to do an email chain please put me on it: owen.b.sleigh@gmail.com

- Please emphasize your warrants. Debates that are just claims are no fun.

- I'm happy with spreading just please be clear and slow down if your going through analytics and theory.

Specifics:

DA/CP - Most of my time in high school was spent going for cheating counterplans coupled with some disads. Make sure to tell the story of the disad and articulate the internal links.

T/Theory - I feel like a lot of debates get really messy so please try to keep it organized and straightforward. I lean neg on condo but if you can show abuse I could be persuaded otherwise.

Ks - Some of my favorite debates I've been in are good K debates. While its not the argument style I really like to use myself, I still keep up with researching them and all that jazz. Get specific on your links and turns case analysis and it should be a fun debate, just please explain things, don't assume I know all the details of your specific philosophy.

K-affs - I'd prefer them to be in the direction of the topic, I totally understand the strategic implications of not doing that at all though. Similar to Ks, I'd prefer you spend some time explaining how the K functions in the round.

Case - This should be the most important part of the debate if your aff. Your aff is your best source of offense in the round, so please use it! That being said, neg teams that know the aff case better than the aff team are really scary.

Speaks - I haven't really thought about it too much but I think the whole system is kinda weird so probably going to be giving higher speaks.

All in all please have fun and be nice to each other. If you have any questions please email me or ask me before the round.

TLDR; Will flow anything, but must EXPLAIN everything well. Also, I wrote this paradigm when I remembered more debate jargon.

Case Debate:

- My favorite type of debate is fast case debate.

- I like to see unique cases with lots of analysis (and evidence).

- Weird, semi-abusive case positions are awesome, but be prepared for T.

- Counter-plans are the best. Also, CP's can be competitive through opp. cost or net benefits in my eyes, because real policy does work like that. Run creative CP's, also weird ones, but know T could come your way

- Internal links are pretty important for me, because a lot of the time debaters don't know how links lead to the impacts. lack of internal links can also lead to political statements becoming norms. Don't assume I'll just vote for blanket impact statements like "inequality is bad" because that's not necessarily true -- "poverty is bad" is a statement we can all agree is true.

Theory:

- Unfortunately, theory comes first. I hate to see really creative cases brought down by weak theory arguments, so make sure and respond.

- It always bothered me that the debate community has an overly rigid set of requirements for theory and responses to it. Yes, please run interp, violation, standards, voters for flow's sake, but you can still win T without that if you have a clear explanation of the abuse and why it's bad.

- Same for responses to T. I'm not going to expect you to respond to every minutiae. You don't need to go for both reasonability and competition interpretation. Just one works.

- Feel free to run frivolous theory/multiple shells or whatever the hell you want to run, granted that the other team is equipped to handle that. That just means don't be abusive towards opponents who aren't trained to handle those types of situations. A truly good team can beat a worse team with normal, accessible arguments.

Kritiks:

- I ran plenty in high school, but it has been a while. K's are cool, but you cannot assume that I will fill in logical gaps in your case for you. Your K has to be a complete and thorough explanation of the philosophy you endorse.

- Feel free to read anything else, granted that you will EXPLAIN wtf you are talking about, and will CONTEXTUALIZE to the round. Give me round specific links please.

- Alternatives can be anything, but I'm a big fan of perms. You can assume endorsed a lot of these kritiks before, so give me a reason why I should again. How do I as the judge actually solve for your impacts? Is being in a debate round the actual best use of time for you as someone trying to spread a certain philosophy? If I endorse the alt, what are the short term impacts of rejecting the plan (and can they be reverse solved)?

- K Aff's are cool. So are critical disads, etc. I'm trying to have fun when judging.

Other:

- Don't presume any political/social biases on my part. If you do, it could hurt speaker points.

- Humor helps speaker points!

- About speaker points, will average a 27.5/28, 29 means definitely expecting you to break, 30 means you will do really well at tournament.

- Don't spread when you don't need to. That's bad for your physical and mental health. When you spread, be clear to me and your opponents, I will shout "clear!" and "slow!" when needed. Ignoring me repeatedly will hurt speaks and cause me to not flow arguments.

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

CHSSA MS State Update for CX, LD, PF:

• Utilize full CX (and prep time, if necessary)
• Do evidence/warrant comparisons
• Weigh (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility)
• DON'T gender your opponents if pronouns are not disclosed in the Tab blast, speaks will significantly lower—they is fine as a neutral pronoun
• I don't flow off speech docs and I only call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. Verifying evidence ethics is your responsibility as debaters, otherwise I defer to what's on my flow.
• Please don't mention program name during introductions—entries are coded for a reason! I likely have implicit thoughts about programs as a former competitor in CFL/Calif. Coast and I hope you'll help me check back against that

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to find me in Parli Prep and ask me before the round!

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:

"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.

There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.

Basically: debate like it's trad LD."

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

After debating at the national level in high school, I broke at major tournaments debating for UC Berkeley. After law school I became a public defender specializing in death penalty trials, and then was appointed to the Superior Court, where I hear advocates every day. My professional orientation informs my debate judging with a real-world orientation. In 2014, I founded the New Roads School debate team and coached parli for six years. Two of my teams reached the NPDL top ten. Now, volunteer debate judging is my way to pay forward the gifts I received from debating, to which I attribute my successful legal career.

I prefer the most reasonable argument to the most extreme. As a ‘policy maker’ I weigh impacts and I am ‘Tabula Rasa’ in that I am an open-minded skeptic.

Tabula Rasa assumes a conventional understanding of the status quo which does not require warrants because these neutral assumptions appropriately narrow the scope of discussion. Any claims supporting or refuting a case must be supported by warrants whether on not the judge has knowledge. Each side has the burden of persuasion on claims they assert.

Use of debate theory in argumentation and employment of kritiks is theoretically sound and can be interesting but these devices may circumvent the resolution and tend to turn debates into sophistry. They also tend to be poorly warranted. I could vote for a kritik or meta-argument, but only if very well warranted. Theory addresses norms, not rules, so I am open-minded, but I also would consider abuse a reverse voting issue. I prefer reasonable case debate with impact calculus.

I don't mind speed but don’t forget to be persuasive, not to mention 'loud and clear.' When your words become inaudible they won’t make it to my flowsheet and the beauty of your argument will be sacrificed to the ugliness of its delivery.

Tag teaming doesn't bother me, but I only flow the speaker and try to ingore the teammate.

On my ballot, dropping is a concession, but not equivalent to proof if the original warrant was insufficient. Also, the weight remains arguable. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.

Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Sometimes this seems lost when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal explaining the significance of your argument and its result in evaluating the resolution. Debate is not just about being right, but about persuading people you are right. Though I vote exclusively on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge, even if they say “tech over truth.” For me, what is persuasive would tend to be a reasonable weighing of human impacts.

I’m looking for a debate that is educational, preparing advocates for the real world. Rapid delivery of complex argumentation and the logical gymnastics of theory do have some educational benefits, but so does development of the persuasive character of speech. The best debaters join these skills, using theory only to support their position and not for its own sake. Debate is not a ‘speech event’, because it is judged on the flow of argumentation, but without persuasive speaking, debate becomes an esoteric and inaccessible academic activity. Its greatest value to you is learning to advocate in the real world to make the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your debate and helping guide you toward your own goals as an advocate.

I have been coaching Parli, NFALD, and IPDA for several years, before that I competed in all three, so I've seen a lot. Mostly a flow judge.

Historical references make me happy because history provides a framework from which discussions can grow. Misuse of historical warrants makes me sad because bad faith arguments are the death of civilized society.

I definitely prefer case debate. Those who are careful about choosing their ground will find it fairly easy to win my ballot.

I sometimes vote on theory if I think that the AFF has questionable topicality, but it's always important to consider the time tradeoffs, because everyone will get confused if the whole debate is just theoretical.

I occasionally vote on a K, but only if you make it CLEAR and explain the theories plainly, for the judges AND your opponents. Respect is the key word here. I’m not a fan of abusive frameworks that are designed to box the other team out of the debate, so I'll probably look for a way to weigh case directly against the K because I believe that's the most functional way to view debate.

Evidence blocks are good because some facts work well together and this increases the efficiency of listing warrants... But canned arguments in Parli make me sad because there's an event for that and it's called LD. Having a favorite argument is not the same as having a canned argument, it's all about when and how you use it.

I basically never vote on RVIs, they're infinitely regressive and boring to hear.

This is a sport for talking; part of my job as a judge is to provide a theoretically level playing field which adheres to the rules of the event.

So... Tabula Rasa, but I'm still a debate coach doing the writing on that blank slate.

I am a parent volunteer and have judged at a few tournaments before. I also debated three years of policy debate for Loyola High School (LA) and then a year of parliamentary at Princeton University. However, that was some time ago, and I am not as familiar with theory and K debate. So, if you run theory, please explain all lingo, and please avoid K's altogether because I may not be able to follow.

Please speak clearly and try not to go too fast so I can flow your arguments. Signpost and flush out your arguments; I won't buy a point only supported by numbers and stats, you need to explain to me why that evidence matters and why your argument is true. Towards the end of your rebuttals speech, make sure to close off the debate and tell me why you think you should win, tell me what you want me to vote on and why.

Misrepresenting your opposition's arguments may be good enough to win you the debate (if they don't call you out on it), but it sure won't win you any speaker points. Be respectful to opponents/partners/judges/audience. Ethics violations will heavily influence speaker points. I will generally score speakers on a range between 24-30 speaker points (although I reserve the right to go below that for serious ethics violations). I will consider both argumentation and presentation but generally weight the former above the latter. Points for humor if you can pull it off!

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.

My email (please add me to the chain): anthony@zanella.co or 4a.zanella@gmail.com

For the short version of this paradigm, read the bold stuff. Useful for those 2 minutes right before a round. Read the longer stuff if you want. Your call.

TLDR from Bill and Ted: Be excellent to each other.

Also, ask your questions about my preferences before the round. I'm not really comfortable speaking in rounds as a judge. Yet, I'll still get people asking "Are you okay with tag team?" as Cross-X begins and that's just awkward.

History

I have some experience as a circuit debater, but not much. That means that some vocabulary will go over my head. I'll do my best to make sense of it, but just spewing tech-speak may get me lost.

Stock Issues

On Case

Good debates can happen here. Seriously. On case debates can be some of the most fun rounds to judge, and participate in. They may feel "simple" or "basic" to fast debaters, but it shouldn't be ignored.

Topicality

I really like Topicality. This year though (2019-2020) holds very little grey area for this, with most cases pretty obviously topical or not. If you think you can convince me otherwise though, I'd love to hear it. I've run cases that were... questionably topical, and like to hear defense of them. Basically, I like to Topicality, but it might be hard if it's stupid.

That being said, lots of teams like to use Topicality to timeskew the aff. I guess you can do this, but if you don't properly run it, then you wasted your time as well. And when Aff says "Neg provided no voters", that's that.

Framing

Framing is good. "Slow" debate tends not to explicitly use framing that often, instead leaving only undertones and implicit claims that "magnitude is the most vital", without serious examination of values to focus on. Does the extermination of a species outweigh a "small" number of humans dying? You tell me!

Kritiks

Sure. Don't assume I've read your literature. Even if I have, I'm going to pretend like I haven't. **Lots of Kritiqs have weak internal links and/or alts, and pointing that out is a quick way to refute them. Both teams should also be doing impact analysis here, standard timeframe/magnitude/probability stuff. If we die tomorrow without the aff plan, that might outweigh the Kritiq. Goes both ways though.

General General-General

I tend to have very little facial reactions in round, unless I'm trying to. So if I look dead inside, don't worry. That's just me. If I have a pen in my hand, I'm thinking about what you're saying. If I put my pen down, that's bad.

UPDATE TO THE PEN THING: I'm also trying to flow on computer now. So... Don't expect a pen if I do that.

I'm okay with oral prompting. Just make sure the speaker is the one who ends up saying it. I only flow the speaker. If I think you're carrying your partner really hard, that's where speaker points come into play. Written prompting is also fine.

Judging Style

Pretending to be Tabula Rasa is so passe. Seriously, everyone has some bias, although some of the really good coaches can pretend to be whatever style they want. That's pretty awesome, and not something I'm really practiced at.

Instead, I'm a Critic of Argument, and Policymaker by default. However, I also believe in least intervention. That results in requirements for each side to (dis)prove arguments. An inherently stupid argument needs very little to refute it. If nobody argues for another style, that's what I'll use. Feel free to convince me otherwise. TECH > TRUTH though.

I feel like I could write a few paragraphs on this. I'm not going to. Ask me if you need to.
Interesting reading: https://www.cs.jhu.edu/~jonathan/debate/ceda-l/archive/CEDA-L-Oct-1996/msg00041.html

Speed/Spreading

I can probably handle it, as long as you enunciate. However, I need you to RAMP UP your speed. Seriously, I will miss the start of your arguments, and that can only hurt you. Also, slow down for cites. I need to write that stuff down, and so does the other team.

I will say "CLEAR" *once* per speech if I think I need to. No more. Also, if I think you are trying to outspread the other team, that's: 1. really sucky of you, 2. a reason to run abuse, and 3. a reason for me to not try that much to flow your stuff. Basically, outspreading teams is bad. Beware the consequences.

Longer version though, debate is supposed to be inclusive. That's why there's so much focus on gendered pronouns, ableism, and the like. If you can't even have the courtesy to allow the other team to debate you, then you've screwed up.

Abuse becomes even more obvious if I see teams agree on delivery, and then not follow those agreements.

Presumption

Presumption isn't always neg. If neg in advocates for a change, such as a CP or a K with an alt, then the neg has now advocated for change. Trying to measure change is pretty futile, and in most circumstances will result in pedantic arguments with silly PICs. Please don't force me to sit through you explaining why sending 1 less troop will still solve for the aff, and should be a CP. PICs are boring, and suck.

That being said, if I need to vote on Presumption, both teams have horrendously failed.

Conditionality

Good? Bad? You tell me. This is a really touchy feely subject. Generally, One or two is okay, lots isn't. I don't have a good answer for you, which I guess makes me a blank slate. yay?

Cross-X

Cross-X is good. Cross-X is kinda binding. In the sense that a concession made in Cross-X should be mentioned in a speech.
Tag team is also fine. Just know you're sacrificing your own time to prep during Cross-X.

This is also the time to clarify questions that you have about the other team's arguments. Seriously. If you are confused by your opponent's arguments, ask about it. There's the possibility that I'm confused too. I will never hold clarification questions against you. This is part of why policy can run suck wack arguments, because questions are possible.

Impact Calculus

Magnitude shouldn't the most important. If you want to debate back and forth on this, I guess you can. However, there is value in probability too, something that tends to be ignored. Debaters too often state that their "timeframe is now" and magnitude is "extinction of everything", without debating just how likely that is.

I'd love to hear about probability too. Seriously. But I'll evaluate what y'all want to focus on, I guess.

Abuse

I default to no RVI, but can be convinced otherwise. I've seen rounds where enough theory was run that the Aff didn't have time to respond on case. That's a reason for a RVI. But say that in round.

That being said, theory exists as a way to check possible abuse. You don't need a super defined theory shell to win on this, as long as your argument is logically sound and holds up to scrutiny (as the other team will no doubt provide).

A round of pure theory is easy to make stupid. Beware, but don't be afraid.

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

As a matter of principle, I only judge for tournaments that accept independent entries.

NPDI update 11/4/19:

LD paradigm still applies. Parli-specific:

1. Clarification on defaults: my defaults do NOT mean I will backfill warrants for you. For example, if you go for theory but never warrant competing interps or drop the debater, I will eval the next layer.

2. Tech >>>> truth. This means there are no arguments I am categorically opposed to voting on, and I am willing to vote for the "worse" argument if it is won on the flow

3. Read whatever makes you happy, not what you think will make me happy :)

LD Paradigm:

I debated LD for Palo Alto Independent for 3 years, qualling in the last 2.

franceszhuang7@gmail.com for email chains and questions.

Debate is your game — you make the rules. I (like Fred Ditzian, who I generally agree with) will vote on on anything with a warrant.

Go as fast as you want, but pop your tags, numbers, and interps/plan/perm texts. I'll call clear.

Tell me which impacts and layers come first. One sentence is sufficient to overcome these, but I default: probability first, terminal defense exists, root causes exist, perms are tests of competition, epistemic confidence, truth testing, drop the debater, competing interps, fairness/education matter, education matters more, RVIs on theory, and no RVIs on T.

You'll get high speaks as long as the round is educational for everyone. Be nice to debaters with less experience, though I don't care if you throw shade once you're both qualled (stolen from Colin, who I also tend to agree with).