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

2018 NPDA National Champion

I can judge pretty much anything. Just be clear and have fun.

For additional speaker points, consult the below recipe.

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

***Before you strike me, ask your DoF how many times I beat the teams they coached. Now, rethink your strike and pref me higher.***

Ingredients:

• 1⁄2 cup butter
• 2 tablespoons cream cheese
• 1 pint heavy cream
• 1 teaspoon garlic powder
• salt
• black pepper
• 2⁄3 cup grated parmesan cheese (preferably fresh)
• 1 lb fettuccine, prepared as directed

Directions:

1. In a medium saucepan, melt butter.
2. When butter is melted, add cream cheese.
3. When the cream cheese is softened, add heavy cream.
4. Season with garlic powder, salt, and pepper.
5. Simmer for 15-20 minutes over low heat, stirring constantly.
6. Remove from heat and stir in parmesan.
7. Serve over hot fettuccine noodles.

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!

No longer active in debate. Please refer to Raffi Piliero for all thoughts, comments, questions, and concerns.

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.

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

not quite familiar with the current norms of parli now

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

I probably judge reasonably the same as before

Updated September 2020

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

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

And because I cannot stress this enough..

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

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

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

_______________________________

Background

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

General

Tabula rasa

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

Fine with speed(~250 wpm)

Fine with tagteaming, but only flows what speaker says

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

no shadow extensions

no stealing prep

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

some examples of incorrect and correct weighing arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I judge rounds

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

Case

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

CPs

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

Theory

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

Having specific interps is good.

Kritiks

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

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

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

Speaker Points

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

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

about me:

• my pronouns are he/him

• 4 years of high school parliamentary at Irvington HS

• TOC qual 10th and 11th wasn’t on the circuit much in 12th

• plenty of experience with case and theory, familiar with most tech, but minimal experience with kritiks and kritikal debate (just wasn’t for me…sorry!)

TLDR - Case and Ts are lovely, Ks not so much. WEIGHING, structure, analysis, clash, and good strategy.

general info:

• tabula rasa, but I have really high threshold when it comes to considering blatantly false claims as deciding factors in a round

• I’m ok with speed (250ish wpm), but this is my first time judging virtually, so this might change. It is also a different dynamic than in person, so please be extremely cognizant of requests to slow/clear.

• tag-teaming is A-OK, but I will only flow what the recognized speaker says.

• no shadow extensions pls. it’s just bad debate. I think they’re on par with new arguments, so if you call POO, I will consider giving it less weight.

• On the topic of POOs, I’ll do my best to catch new arguments and protect against them on the flow, but I’m a human being and I make mistakes, so be vigilant and call POOs if it is necessary.

• judge intervention - hated it when I was on the circuit, so I try to intervene as little as possible. That being said, take every step to ensure that I don’t feel burdened to intervene.

• please signpost!

case/disad:

• I was really big on case and t in high school, and I still am now. I value clearly organized and structured case/disad with purposeful claims and warrants. I’m ok with most, if not all, arguments as long they have clear, logical links and properly terminalized impacts. Please please please don’t tell me you help the environment without telling me why the environment is important.

• I also think that impact calc and weighing are super super super important. I’m really going to struggle to evaluate the debate without that key analysis, and once again, I hate intervention. if there aren’t weighing arguments will most likely default to magnitude since that path minimizes intervention.

• most important things - weighing, actively engaging with opponents’ case (clash), and strategic collapse.

CP:

• CPs are totally fine, and I think they’re often a good strat for the neg.

• PICs are okay too, but you have to prove that they’re theoretically legitimate. Just be careful about being abusive.

• don’t like condo that much, but I’ll entertain it if you can defend your position.

theory:

• I appreciate structure when it comes to theory. Don’t read unorganized or incomplete theory, with substandard standards or unterminalized impacts. With theory, the same level of attention to detail as I do for case/disad.

• I don’t like frivolous theory, but I’ll still vote on it (with a higher threshold) if it’s run well.

• I’ll default to competing interps unless you give me a good reason to evaluate based on reasonability. If you want me to evaluate based on reasonability, I need a brightline because I hate intervention.

• like I said earlier, I don’t like condo much, especially in situations with contradictory advocacies, but I’ll still play along if it’s warranted.

• weigh between standards the same way you might weigh link scenarios in case debate. Don’t make me intervene.

• I won’t vote on an RVI unless you give me a really good reason (high threshold).

kritiks:

• definitely not K debater, and very minimal knowledge on lit.

• I have a basic conceptual understanding of cap, security, colonialism, and ableism, so I will still be able to follow the K.

• I still understand the structure of a Kritik and how it should function in the debate space, and I won’t be completely lost.

• if for whatever reason, you decide to run a K, then make sure to these things.

• Have a very clear structure

• Explain the Kritik thoroughly

• Do not go too fast

• Explain any weird jargon

• I know it might be frustrating to have a flow judge who doesn’t get Ks, but if you work with me, I’ll do my very best to evaluate the K.

Speaks:

• in my opinion, speaks are an unfair and antiquated practice; they’re ableist, sexist, racist, etc.

• if you are rude, abusive, or rhetorically violent, I will definitely tank your speaks.

• strategic arguments, warrants, weighing, and collapsing will earn you high speaks.

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

There is no grace time in parliamentary debate!! I stop flowing when your speech time has ended.

When I judge in person, I'm usually waking up like 4 hours earlier than normal, so I tend to yawn a lot during debates. Sorry if it's distracting, and I promise I am not getting bored or falling asleep!

General

These are all ultimately preferences. You should debate the way you want to debate.

For online debate: put texts in the chat for every advocacy/ROTB/interp. Texts are binding.

I'm okay with speed and will slow/clear you if necessary. If you don't slow for your opponents, I will drop you.

I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.

Please give content warnings as applicable. The more the merrier.

A safe debate is my primary consideration as a judge. Do not misgender your opponents. I will not hesitate to intervene against any rhetorically violent arguments.

If any debater requests it, I will stop a round and escalate the situation to Tab, tournament equity, and your coaches. I will also do this in the absence of a request if I feel like something unsafe has occurred and it is beyond my jurisdiction/capacity to deal with it.

Case

Weigh, interact with your opponent's arguments, and signpost!! I prefer when your weighing is contextualized to the argument you want me to vote on, rather than across-the-board generalizations of preferring probability or magnitude. Unwarranted links have zero probability even if they are conceded. Cross-applications need to be contextualized to the new argument.

All types of counterplans are game and so is counterplan theory. Perms are a test of competition. I have no idea what a neg perm is, so if you read one, you have to both justify why the negative is entitled to a perm and also what a neg perm means in the context of aff/neg burdens.

I would prefer it if you cited your sources unless the tournament explicitly prohibits you from doing so. If there is an evidence challenge that affects my ballot, I will vote before I check your evidence, and if I find intentional evidence fabrication, I will communicate that information to tab.

Theory/Topicality

Theory is cool! Please have a clear interpretation and have a text ready. I am happy to vote on whatever layering claims you make regarding theory vs. Ks. In the absence of layering, I will default to theory a priori.

I won't vote on theory shells that police the clothing, physical presentation, or camera usage (for online debate) of debaters. I will evaluate neg K's bad theory, disclosure, and speed theory as objectively as possible, but I don't really like these arguments and probably hack against them. Aff K's bad/T-USfg is fine. I will drop you for reading disclosure in the form of consent/FPIC theory. I'll vote on all other theory shells.

I default to competing interpretations, potential abuse > proven abuse, and drop the argument. To vote for reasonability, I need a clear brightline on what is reasonable. I am neutral on fairness vs. education. I'm neutral on RVIs, but I'll vote for them if you win them. I am good with conditional advocacies, and also good with hearing conditionality theory.

Kritiks

KvK is currently my favorite type of debate to judge. Rejecting the resolution, performance Ks, and framework theory are all fine with me. Please read a role of the ballot. If you are interested in learning more about K debate, please email me and I will send you any resources/answer any questions you may have.

Tech v. Truth

I default to tech over truth, but I probably lean towards truth more than your average tech judge. I'm open to arguments that say I should weigh truth over tech and disregard the flow when technical debate is sidelining disadvantaged teams. I think while technical debate can be a tool for combatting oppression in the debate space, skill at technical debate is definitely correlated with class, income, and whiteness. As such, I'm willing to hear arguments that ask me to devalue the flow in favor of solving a form of violence that has occurred in the round as a result of technical debate.

Miscellaneous

For speaker points, I give 27s as a baseline. I won't go below this unless you are violent or exclusionary. Please answer 1-2 POIs if there isn't flex.

My resting face and my frowning face are the same, and I have very expressive nonverbals– I recognize that this combo can be intimidating/confusing and I strongly urge you not to use my nonverbals as indicators of anything. I promise I don't hate you or your arguments, it's just my face!

Good luck :^)

I am currently a third year law student, I am taking the California Bar Exam this summer, and I have a B.A. in Philosophy with a minor in Sociology. I think social justice is a serious issue, especially in our country today. If you can make an argument related to it I’ll be more likely to vote for you. I have never competed in debate myself, I have judged at Stanford a handful of times, and I am not a coach. I am taking notes on an Excel sheet. If you want me to open different tabs for sections of the debate I am happy to do that but you need to tell me what they are and when to shift.

Speaker points:

Respect and professionalism are key in debate and in life. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters will be punished on speaker points for being rude or abusive. Toxic masculinity, racism, and microaggressions are real and I take them very seriously. My job is to oversee this round as well as protect everyone participating. That said, I have the right to stop the round as I see fit. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.

Theory:

I do not have experience evaluating debate theory, but as far as I understand, it is similar to legal statutory interpretation. So, as long as you’re clear I’m happy to hear your arguments.

Kritiques:

Here are the family of things I’m familiar with: gender theory, Marxism, critical race theory, and other moral philosophical theories. That said, I’ve never evaluated these in a debate before, but I’m more than happy to be walked through it by debaters.

Case:

I much prefer good case debate with solid warrants. There is no verifiable evidence in Parli but please let’s now abuse that. I will gut check on obviously false stuff but don’t expect me to know the exact percentage of a random subsidy. The Affirmative is not required to stick with two advantages. I’m fine with perception debates. Terminalized impacts matter.

CP/Permutations:

Permutations are fine, but keep in mind that my legal education shapes how I approach them. That is, I’m likely to be very literal about the question of mutual exclusivity. Counterplans should be real. It will be hard to get me to say that everyone should get a farm subsidy and a cookie is enough to vote. Give me something real to distinguish the CP from the plan.

POI:

Teams are free to either (1) turn their camera on and say out loud “POI” to audibly indicate to the speaker that they want to be recognized, or (2) they can be put in the chat and partners of the speaker can reply to those/tag team. THIS DOES NOT MEAN pasting large blocks of text in the chat box. It should be brief. No articles from news sources, no long wordy answers. If you engage in any of these behaviors you’ll get one warning. After that, I will drop you.

Speed:

I am not comfortable with a high speed debate. Please do not spread or move quickly, slightly above conversational speed is fine.

August 2020

Here is my paradigm from 2017, with only slight modifications. Everything I said below applies, with the caveat that I haven’t really debated or even judged in the intervening three years, and am therefore likely to be rusty.

November 2017

Nutshell: I debated circuit parli for 4 years in high school, with (very) brief forays of LD. Open to hearing any argument as long as it’s impacted clearly and you tell me how to evaluate it. I mostly went for case debate and theory, but I’ve read the K and I’m very open to hearing it as a judge.

LD-SPECIFIC: Everything below applies, especially RE topicality, the K, etc.

Speed — I should be able to handle most things, but a really fast LD spread might outpace my flowing — if it does, I won’t hesitate to call clear.

Framework — Coming from parli, I’m most familiar with util-based frameworks but I have passing familiarity with most things and I’m happy to evaluate meta-ethical debates. That said, all frameworks (but especially non-consequentalist ones) need to clearly explain how I should evaluate the debate.

Theory — If the interp doesn’t have labeled, distinct standards when initially read, I give the other side a lot of latitude to make later responses. That said, if the standards are labeled and not terribly developed, a drop is still a drop.

Policy-style debating — I’ll probably have a hard time penalizing someone for running a plan, but I’m certainly happy to evaluate the argument.

GENERAL:

SPEED:

Shouldn’t be an issue in parli — I can flow as fast as anyone is going to be talking. If this is policy, go maybe 80% and you should be OK — I’ll call slow or clear as necessary.

I’ll never stop trying to flow, but if I have to call clear too many times it probably means I’m not getting very much.

DISADS / CASE:

Yes please. Highly specific and warranted arguments will get you high speaks. Generics make me less happy, but I like to see them debated well and I’m happy to vote on them. Either way, a clean collapse and clear strategy are your friend.

Please do weighing. A couple specific notes here:

• The best kind of weighing is an explanation for why you are ahead on the substantive questions of the debate and your specific impacts need to be prioritized. The worst kind of weighing is “always prefer x,” where x is magnitude, probability, or timeframe. That doesn’t mean that magnitude, probability, and timeframe shouldn’t enter into your analysis, but you should be contextualizing what you say to the arguments made in the round, rather than claiming that one particular criterion always wins out.

• Impacts aren’t inherently improbable. If you want me to vote against (e.g.) a nuclear war impact for being improbable, it should be because you have link defense against it, however generic.

• Weighing (in the above sense of explaining argument interactions) is allowed in the last speech. However, new argumentation still isn’t. If you are going for a higher magnitude impact on the aff, you can’t get up in the PMR and make the uncontested claim that the judge should always prefer magnitude. If you want to make such an argument I’ll evaluate it, but I won’t adopt it uncritically unless it’s made in an earlier speech and conceded.

• If forced to, I’ll default to magnitude as a tiebreaker. However, this is only if I see no other way to evaluate the debate, and you shouldn’t expect this to happen. More likely, if no one tells me what to think, I’ll form my own opinion about what the most important impacts in the round are, and then vote on those. Thus, if your impact is higher magnitude but you conceded terminal link defense, I’ll still vote against you in the absence of explicit weighing from either side.

TOPICALITY / THEORY:

When well-executed, topicality especially is a personal favorite argument for me. If you’re going for T, collapse to it in the block and don’t go for anything else. Impact out your standards. Internal link turn the other side’s standards. Be as clear as you can about interps — to the extent that I can, I’m evaluating what you said and not what you meant, so say what you mean.

Default to competing interpretations — I’m happy to vote on reasonability, but you definitely need a bright line and should tell me how your version of reasonability functions.

I have no particular objection to "frivolous theory" as long as it meets the standard set out in the debate (competing interps, reasonability, etc.).

COUNTERPLANS:

Run them. I especially enjoy thoughtful uniqueness and advantage CPs, but I’m down to hear anything. Make sure to clearly articulate your competition and net benefits, and keep your text stable.

I tend to think one conditional advocacy is reasonable and maybe even good, but I’m highly open to hearing theory otherwise, or for you to read five and justify it. However, I'll never sever arguments, so any claims you make on the CP debate can be used against you even if you kick the counterplan.

Specific counterplans: delay, conditions, etc. are probably cheating, and consult might be. Open to hearing arguments on PICs, alternative actor etc. These are all defaults so feel free to do whatever you can justify.

THE K:

Happy to hear it, although it wasn’t my personal focus. By default, I’ll tend to think about the K debate as a comparison of methods against that of the aff. If you want me to do something else, I will — just make sure to justify it.

Don’t try to confuse your opponents out of the round. That’s bad debating. Especially if your K is confusing, take a bunch of questions and explain what the other side asks you to.

Make sure your alternative solvency gets well explained, and that it resolves your links. This is probably how you’ll lose if I vote aff.

If your framework arguments deny the aff access to the debate I won’t be happy, but I will evaluate them. On the aff, please answer those arguments and leverage your offense within both frameworks.

I may or may not have heard of your author, but either way your threshold for explaining the argument should be the same.

K AFFS:

If they’re your thing, go ahead. I tend to feel like the aff should affirm the topic at least in some form, which means I’m probably more open to framework than some. But debate it out.

I don’t feel comfortable voting on disclosure theory unless you can show me proof there wasn’t any after the round — as in, a text message refusing to disclose. If there’s proof, I don’t have an issue.

TRICKS:

Skep, presumption, and arguments of a "similar flavor" (this includes variants of "vote neg because the resolution is nonsensical): I don't have any particular issue with this strategy, but I'm likely to evaluate it in a fairly all-or-nothing way; for instance, if you want me to vote neg because the resolution is meaningless, I will be reasonably willing to evaluate aff responses as takeouts.

GENERAL:

Don’t be offensive or horrible — impact turning racism, insulting your opponents, etc.

You should really give the other side a text when they ask, and take at least one question per speech. But it’s not a reason you’ll lose unless someone reads (and wins) theory.

For parli: I’ll protect against blatantly new arguments in the rebuttal, but if it’s borderline I’ll let it through absent a challenge from the other side. You should call a point of order on anything you think is new.

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 use speaks to reward good strategic calls, execution, and well-written files.

- 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 coach, judge, and former debater.

- 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.

- I care a lot about the quality of Ks. I really love Ks that are dense, well-written, and demonstrate a clear understanding and commitment to the lit base from which they're pulled. I don't love Ks that are nothing more than an assemblage of arguments you think are strategic. Use file writing as an opportunity to show me that you've done your homework. Obviously I won't hack against a K I think is poorly written or anything, I'll vote on the flow, but I might decrease your speaks if I think your K is particularly bad.

- 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. This is probably my biggest K pet peeve.

- 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.

about me:

- 4 years of highschool parli for Irvington HS

- primarily a case and T debater

.

what i like:

- strong link chains

- simplicity and strength of logic

- strong impact calculus in rebuttal speeches

- concise speeches

.

what i don't like:

- over-impacting (i know that nuclear war is bad, you don't need to spend half your first constructive speech explaining that to me)

- friv T or Ks

- critical arguments just to throw the other team off (you need strong links to the case/res in order for me to weigh K over case or T)

- potential abuse as a voter

- weighing impact over probability

.

random notes:

- i am tabula rasa

- Ks should only be run where they apply

- play fair

he/him

email: bennettfees@berkeley.edu

I debated for 2 years at Brophy College Preparatory in LD. I did NPDA at Berkeley.

General Stuff:

• I’ll vote on any argument that’s warranted
• Speed is fine, just be clear.
• If you’re going to do an analytics dump just slow down so I can catch them and if you are reading multiple responses to an arg please number how many points there are before you spread through them (i.e. 4 points…)
• Speaks boost if you flash analytics and disclose open source.

Tech -------X-----------------------------------Truth

Flows the doc ----------------------------------------X--Flow what I hear

Fairness/clash/research impacts on T --------X----------------------------------Movements?

Offense/defense on T -------------------------X-----------------Impact turns

Extinction outweighs vs K ---------------------------------------X---- Link level args/perm

Conditionality bad -------------------------X--------------------Infinite and good

Aff-leaning on T vs Policy Affs --------------------X----------------------Neg-leaning on T vs Policy Affs

Internal Link Answers ----X--------------------------------------Impact Defense

Actually extending arguments ----X--------------------------------------- Shadow Extensions

Policy: Love these. Please know the evidence and the internal link story well and extend arguments not just authors during cross applications. As always, weighing is ultra-important. Affs should have inherency and weighing should start in the 1AR. For CP’s you should say "condo -> judge kick" if you want me to judge kick. For DA’s quality over quantity- a couple well-cut cards with warrants that says what you want it to say > seven one-liners

Phil: I know a lot of phil as it was actually written by the author and I’m very comfortable judging these types of debates. Be sure to make comparative fw answers as well as line by line their framework. In debate I think phil gets used as a cop-out in favor of hiding tricks which I’m not a fan of. I’m fine with independent voters justified by the fw just be clear about them. If you must read tricks then be upfront about them and they should be grouped at the top or the bottom of the doc

Theory/T: Great. I think that line-by-line is especially important in these kinds of debates and value as many specific ties to the topic as possible. Weighing between standards is also a must that is too often overlooked. I default competing interps, DTA, no RVI, and fairness as a voter; however, I can be easily persuaded otherwise. Semantic heavy shells like nebel can be ok if it's cut right. I have a low tolerance for friv theory shells. Also, if you have a saucy justification or explanation of a standard that is unique from what most people would read SLOW DOWN so I can flow that independent of the stock stuff.

K: While I didn't run many kritikal positions in high school, I do it much more now and enjoy these types of debates. I’m comfortable with Baudrillard, Warren, Deleuze, Bataille and stock Ks, anything else I approach through how you explain the thesis of the K so be sure to describe what exactly your K is/does and why that means I should vote for you (clear overviews that explain the framing > extending obscure terminology) . I tend to buy “non-falsifiable” evidence versus most psychoanalytic theories, provided they’re warranted. I don’t like Floating PIKs and think the K needs to win its thesis of the world to win the round. I always appreciate a good link wall. For K affs v Topicality you need to explain how the process of debate functions under your model and should do more than just impact turn the voters. I think most K ROB don’t make much sense and the analysis of why certain impacts come first should just be included in the framing.

Stanford 2023 Update

Paradigm below is still accurate for parli, but I’m judging CA LD. Feel free to skim/read the whole paradigm below to get a sense of my general views on debate if you want to. Not opposed to speed or a more circuit style of debate, but will roll with whatever you feel good doing (which will probably be what’s most persuasive). I have literally no topic exposure. Please send the speech doc if you have one.

=====

About this Paradigm

• Elements of this paradigm are inspired by the (what I found to be very helpful) paradigms of Khamani Griffin, Meera Keskar, and Jon Telebrico among others.

• The highlights are at the top (the rest is under specifics). The 2 minute version of the whole paradigm is bolded.

• This paradigm is written with parli as its primary focus. I outline some specifics for other events at the bottom.

• Last updated 04/27/2021.

About Me

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Dougherty Valley ‘20

• 4 years of debate (3.5 years in open).

• Primarily parli with a little bit of extemp, impromptu, and world schools.

  • Parli was a mix of circuit/lay. I personally preferred circuit debate, but I did well with both.

UCLA ‘24

• BP and NPDA

Lay Presentation/Clothing/Standing/Etc.

None of this will affect my ballot in any way whatsoever as long as it doesn’t make the debate space exclusionary for others.

General Judging Philosophy

I want to judge rounds where the debaters control the round and do their best debate. As a judge, I see my primary role as finding the path of least resistance to the ballot. These statements lead me to the two main rules of my paradigm:

• I will avoid intervening as much as possible.

  • This pretty obviously leads to me being tech > truth.

• The preferences I list below are defaults - designed to minimize intervention in the absence of explicit argumentation - that are highly malleable.

A few qualifiers on those statements:

• I reserve the right to drop debaters that choose to use morally abhorrent advocacies, arguments, and/or verbiage (keep in mind that morally abhorrent is a pretty high bar: if you need to ask yourself if your advocacy/argument/verbiage choice is morally abhorrent then please just don’t run it).

• I will not vote on out-of-round issues (that’s an issue that is far better handled by coaches, tab staff, equity officers, etc.), but I will gladly be a conduit for bringing them to the appropriate tournament officials / coaches if you want me to be.

• I protect the flow.

  • Sorry, winning off of arguments snuck into a rebuttal ruins the integrity of debate as either a game or as an educational experience.

• I have preferences, and I am obviously biased towards them. I do my best to minimize this bias when presented with argumentation, but I’m only human.

• I will not actively fact check UNLESS:

  • I am specifically asked to on a specific fact AND

  • Fact-checking that fact is the path of least intervention to the ballot.

  • Just use CHSSA evidence challenges please. That makes life a lot easier for all of us, and it's the technically correct way to do things.

Specifics

Questions/Clarification

In the interest of transparency and making flow debate more inclusive, feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm (especially if my paradigm doesn’t address your question) and/or about rounds that I have judged you in (please include your name, team name, the tournament, the round number, and the round flight). I am down to answer questions face to face at in-person tournaments, or you can email me at mrfinn (finish the last name) @gmail.com .

I am always willing to give an RFD and be post-rounded, time permitting. If possible, I will try to do this immediately after the round, but, depending on specific circumstances, this might have to take place after breaks / elim results are announced.

Framework

• Trichotomy

  • I am extremely flexible on trichotomy issues as long as both sides are ok with it.

  • Value Debate

    • Please provide a specific value and value criterion and actually link back to / use them for weighing.

• Skewed framework doesn’t make me want to give you more speaks.

Weighing

• I WILL NOT WEIGH / CONSIDER ARGUMENTS OR PARTS OF ARGUMENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE LOGICALLY-CONNECTED CLAIMS, WARRANTS, AND IMPACTS.

  • This is bolded in all caps because I want teams to understand that I avoid intervening by not doing work for teams that don’t make coherent arguments. If your opponents’ argument doesn’t make sense as presented, then I’m going to do my best to avoid finishing it for them; the same holds true for you. This is one of the most common things that leads teams to think there was judge intervention when there really wasn’t.

• My default weighing is: Probability > Magnitude > Timeframe > Reversibility

  • This ordering is not absolute (e.g. I will probably consider nuclear war with 95% probability to be more important than an ant dying with 100% probability).

  • Please weigh your impacts for me. This is the single best way for you to minimize my intervention.

Layering

• I default to weighing all arguments on the same layer. I’m not going to up-layer for you.

  • For transparency’s sake, if I had a default layering it would be the following: Meta Theory > Theory/T > K > Case.

• I am very skeptical of “voting issues” being up-layered with little to no justification. If you do this, then please spend time justifying it.

Case

• Please break arguments down into Uniqueness/Inherency, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts.

  • Please signpost these.

• Please terminalize your impacts.

Plantexts

• These need to exist if there is a plan/counterplan.

  • Please don’t use any variant of “do the resolution.”

• Nebel is sketchy.

Counterplans

• I’m fine with all kinds of PICs.

  • I have a higher bar than most judges for the various PIC-bad procedurals. If you are going to run one of these, then it’s in your best interest to prove abuse.

• I default to not judge kicking per community norms. If you want me to judge kick, then ask me to and provide a basic explanation of what judge kicking is for your opponents (in case they don’t know).

  • Judge kicking is when the judge can choose to vote for the squo in the case in which they think the plan beats the counterplan but not the squo.

Perm

• The perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.

• It’s in the NEG’s best interest to read some sort of perm defense (competition) in the 1NC so that it’s not all new 2NC argumentation that the 1AR can golden turn.

  • Should be explicitly articulated as mutual exclusivity and/or net benefits.

  • Competition by stealing funding generally doesn’t work. Perm do plan and all of counterplan except stealing funding wrecks this.

• I default to viewing any perm that contains all of the plan and at least part of the counterplan as theoretically legitimate. I default to viewing severance and intrinsic perms as theoretically illegitimate.

  • Severance perms are almost certainly cheating. Intrinsic perms are probably cheating.

K

If you plan on K-hacking without actually knowing your literature and K, then I’m not the judge for you. This does not mean that I won’t vote for the K, but it does mean a couple of things:

• I will be more favorable to a K that is well-linked and clearly relevant but lacking in structure much more than a well-structured but questionably-linked and tangentially-relevant K.

• I might not be familiar with your lit base, but even if I am I won’t fill in the blanks for you.

  • Lit bases I have some familiarity with (listed from most to least familiar):

    • Cap, Biopower, SetCol, Anti Blackness, Fem IR, Anthro, Securitization, Ableism.

• I probably don’t know every framing trick you’ve hidden.

  • You can definitely hide them from your opponent, but you might also wind up hiding them from me.

    • If it doesn’t wind up on my flow after you spread through it in the middle of three bullets that you half finished in the impacts before realizing you were low on time and it doesn’t wind up on my flow, then sorry not sorry.

  • Please give me and your opponents a text if at all possible (especially with zoom debate - please make it a little more fun for everyone).

• I will vote for K’s with incredibly generic links if forced to, but your speaks will suffer. Please don’t commodify the K solely as a tool to get the ballot.

• I think that K Aff’s that don’t affirm the resolution as written are probably cheating.

  • Feel free to try to change my mind on this one. I’m honestly curious about how the NEG is supposed to participate in these rounds / have a viable path to the ballot.

• I personally think that most K’s, as read at the high school level, have alts that lack real solvency and/or competition with the plan.

Theory/T

• Overall, I have a lower bar for theory than most judges on the circuit.

• I default to competing interpretations.

• I default to drop the argument.

• I don’t care about the following (i.e. they won’t impact my decision / ballot) unless they are raised as issues:

  • Proven vs. Hypothetical Abuse

  • Frivolity of Theory

• Please read Theory/T in shell format.

• I will vote on the RVI if read. I probably have a slightly lower bar for this than most judges.

  • A justification for RVIs is NOT the same thing as reading an RVI. If you want me to vote on an RVI, then explicitly read one.

Speed

• Unless you’re coming from circuit LD or policy I can handle full speed.

  • The issue with most parli spreading is clarity rather than speed.

• I will call slow or clear if I need to.

  • If you make me do this more than twice, then your speaks will suffer.

• Please be respectful of the speed that your opponents are comfortable with.

  • Your speaks will definitely suffer if you don’t.

  • I am willing to listen to speed theory, but I think that it’s often a weak / difficult argument.

Points of Information / Order

• Please take at least two POIs per constructive speech.

  • This won’t impact my decision, but it will definitely impact your speaks, especially if the debate becomes sidetracked by an issue that a POI could have easily resolved.

• I don’t flow POIs as responses on the flow, but I do consider responses to POIs to be binding (i.e. if a team clarifies in a POI that a counterplan is unconditional then I expect it to remain that way throughout the round).

• Please don’t abuse POIs as “gotchas.” That’s what your speech is for.

• Call the POO, please. I will protect the flow, but I can’t guarantee that I will catch everything or that I am conceptualizing an argument’s place in the round the same as you are.

Speaker Points

The speaker points system is inherently problematic and should be replaced. However, until it is, I believe that participating in it is the best way to advance equity as a flow judge. I award speaker points solely on the basis of effective strategy and argumentation.

A general scale for speaker points (see above for specific things that might impact speaks).

• <= 25 = Something Problematic / Arguments that just don’t make sense.

• 25-26 = Serious errors that probably lost you the round.

• 27.5 = Average, no significant mishaps or particularly good choices.

• 28.5 = Good strategic choices (likely to be around even).

• 29 = Great strategic choices (likely to break).

• 30 = Visionary strategic choices (likely to do very well in elims).

Other Events

World Schools

• Models are very useful to clarify broad resolutions.

  • This doesn’t exempt the proposition from it’s burden to affirm the whole resolution.

• Humor is very much appreciated if pulled off well.

• Please take points of information.

• I will score speeches individually, but I expect to see coherence between speeches down the bench (a lack of coherence will definitely affect strategy scores).

Policy / Circuit LD

• Please put me on the email chain if there is one: mrfinn (finish the last name) @ gmail.com).

• I understand the core elements of the formats, but I’m not super familiar with their specific implementation (e.g. I know what theory is and how it functions but I’m not 100% caught up with LD’s or Policy’s norms for it).

• I can probably handle about 70% of full speed without a speech doc.

  • I’ll call slow or clear as needed.

  • Please slow down on key parts of cards for me. It is highly unlikely that I know the topic well.

• LD Specific:

  • I’m most familiar with evaluating LARP debates.

  • I’m down to evaluate kritikal debates, but keep in mind that I’m coming from a parli background.

    • I’m probably not familiar with your lit if it’s something more niche (see above for my general familiarity).

    • Parli kritks tend to be much more framework heavy, so make sure that you explain how you want me to evaluate the kritik.

  • As far as tricks/phil go, not my favorite but I will evaluate. Keep in mind, especially with phil, that my background here is fairly limited.

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 it may impact your speaks. 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 January 2024:

I haven't been judging LD for a while; I've mostly been judging PF for the last 3 years. I've almost certainly left things out of this paradigm - if you have more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at serena.e.fitzgerald@gmail.com.

Generally:

I competed primarily in LD in high school (graduated 2015) and NPDA in college (graduated 2018). I've been a (mostly) full-time debate coach since.

I base win/loss only on the content of the arguments; speaker points are based on a combination of rhetorical performance, strategic vision, and technical skill.

Speed is fine, but I'm somewhat rusty, so I might "slow" or "clear" you. I'll call for cards if there is a dispute over their content, but I won't rely on a speech doc to cover for mudmouth or sloppy spreading.

I don't vote off of "arguments" made in cross, only in timed speeches.

Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first. Absent debaters' arguments, I generally default to evaluating procedurals first, kritiks second, and policy arguments last.

I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless extended in the last speech; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.

Specific arguments

LARP/policy/util debate - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.

I am willing to engage in a lot of warrant comparison if the debaters don't do it for me in order to weigh whether a DA/ADV is more probable, so having specific, solid warrants in your evidence (rather than broad claims) will likely help you.

Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks.

I have a relatively high threshold for frame-outs. I find myself more comfortable either voting on substantive solvency arguments based in the critical literature, or granting a weighing mechanism that substantively benefits your critique, than an outright "don't evaluate their case at all" framework. The other two options might be more strategic ways to cross-apply your framework cards in front of me.

In college and high school, I mostly read Ks focusing on Marxism, anti-colonial writers like Fanon and Friere, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari. Puar, Mbembe, and Butler are some of the contemporary philosophers most influential over me. For other theories, you may want to read an overview if you are collapsing to it, to make sure I understand your thesis accurately. (It's probably helpful even if I have read that author before, since you might be emphasizing a different part of their work.)

Theory/ Procedurals - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow.

I find that compared to other judges, I'm not as rigid about the phrasing of theory arguments. If someone substantively makes a "we meet" argument but doesn't formally flag it as such, I will still evaluate the content of the argument and apply it to the theory. However - this is imperfect, and I may not always know what you meant a particular argument to refer to, so it is still always best to flag your arguments and signpost clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of IVI's as they are usually read; the existence of theory in debate does generally seem like the best way of deciding and enforcing the "rules" of debate. However, I find they're usually more persuasive when they incorporate more substantive arguments (especially if it dovetails with the thesis of the case or other arguments presented) - for example, many of the responses that critical affs develop to topicality are very interesting.

Experience:

I am a current debater for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley. This is my first year debating.

General:

I judge on which plan resolves the consequences of the situation being debated about. Whatever side is most beneficial in terms of impacts is what I vote for. Make sure to structure your argument clearly to make it easier for me to follow. There must be clash in the debate and not both sides talking about two different worlds. If you want to win you must address the other sides argument.

I prefer case debate because it stays to the topic. Make sure to have warrants to claims and clearly explain them. Make sure to weigh how your impacts are most important to the debate.

I do not like Kritiks, especially in the affirmative, but if you can relate it to the topic and provide a quality argument I can vote for it. Other than Kritiks I do not mind anything else you choose to run in your arguments as long as you explain them and it relates to the topic.

Speaker Points:

I do not like speed, but I tolerate it if you are clear. As long as you are clear and have a good argument then you will get high speaker points.

I will keep this as simple as I can, but I admit I have never been very brief so I apologize :^)

Long story short: I love fun debates, and I see the activity as a strategy game where the best executed strategy wins, and am comfortable with the vast majority of arguments you read. I only ask you read them in good faith at some level or another, and be kind to your opponents and partners. I competed for 3 years in parli and LD, 2 years at moorpark college and 1 year at CSULB. I am comfortable with speed for the most part (so far it has never been an issue in any round i've judged), and I'll verbally clear or slow you if need be.

More specific considerations: As far as argumentation, I will consider any argumentation style and will not let any personal biases get in the way of making my decision based on the flow and who won the argument (there is one minor side constraint I will describe below). I look for arguments backed up with solid warrants and data - I will not consider a position that relies on a claim that is not supported by evidence (cards in policy/LD, or warrants, data, examples, analysis in parli). Do not expect me grant big top level claims like "_____ is key to the economy" or "US/China is good/bad" without telling me why. I will not vote on any position that I cannot (a) explain in my own words to the other team and (b) utilize evidence to explain why the claims within are true. I will not intervene but I also will not pretend our own biases do not interfere at some level regardless of our attempts to withhold. As such, I will not consider offensive/morally reprehensible arguments (I do not mean "heg good," I mean like genocide/sexual assault good). Just use your best judgement here.

I always strive to make sure I never intervene on any topic, but I do feel it would be helpful for me to point out that I very often tend to vote against pro-US police and pro-US invasion positions. If you win on the flow, I vote for you, plain and simple. But i have a higher threshold for arguments that defend the police or US imperialism, and err on the side of criticism/doubt on those (ESPECIALLY on police good - for personal reasons i do not need to get into). When it is inherent to the topic, this is of course not an issue, but it is just something to keep in mind, because if you can avoid taking that position, it may increase your likelihood of picking up my ballot. sorry not sorry bootlickers :P

I am familiar with most critiques, and read a lot of them when I competed and read a lot of the source literature in school and beyond. Please feel free to read em if you got em. As mentioned above just make sure these claims all have warrants and that it is clear what the thesis level claims are. Even if I fully understand the criticism and am familiar with the lit base myself, I think to get my ballot, you should make it easy for me to explain the thesis and what i'm voting on in simple terms to your opponent. In short, I will not do that work for you in my rfd.

For theory, I am not a judge who usually believes "frivolous theory" exists or that is a problem in debate. I will consider any theoretical position and will vote on it if you go for and win the position. I love a good theory debate, to be completely transparent. However, I do like to see a clear violation and a strong explanation of why that violation matters and made the debate in some way untenable in the standards level debate. In short, I do see debate as a game ultimately where the team with the best strategy and execution wins. I will consider any position, but that also means I will consider the opponent's position on why you don't get to read your critique or CP or whatever. A few caveats. I have a higher threshold for RVIs and generally there is a specific reason why that RVI is read, and almost never comes down to "performative contradiction" or "timesuck/frivolous position." I do still prefer a debate that is in some way about the topic, so if you plan on rejecting the resolution on the aff, keep that in mind. I will look for a reason why the res is rejected, and in my experience, I tend to err on the side of fairness level claims from the neg if the aff rejects. That being said, I do welcome a well warranted rejection of the topic especially when the topic sucks.

Regarding negative advocacies: I default to seeing them as a test of competition, I default to negative having presumption, I default to having a neutral opinion on conditionality/dispositionality (same thing), and I default to the belief that the negative always gets to defend any number of advocacies and/or the status quo. I will consider theory arguments that tell me to evaluate the round otherwise in the same way I describe in the paragraph above. One caveat is I don't like delay CPs and have never voted in favor of one, and haven't felt the need to ever consider one - thankfully we almost never see them anyway. Also please tell me the status of your advocacy when you read it in the 1nc.

There are a myriad of more specific topics we can address - please be sure to ask me before the round if you are unsure. I am happy to answer any more specific question you have before the round as it absolutely makes the debate better to know how your judge stands, what they are looking for, and so on.

Hi! I'm Edward. I debated parli at Evergreen Valley High School for 4 years & currently debate APDA at Yale. I want to keep this paradigm short, so I'll just give a general overview of my experience & how I evaluate arguments.

I did a lot of lay and flow HS parli. I qualled to TOC twice & was in finals at NPDI 2019. I prefer flow debate, but I'm a little bit out of touch with it since I left the west coast. I'll evaluate lay debate on the flow; "quality" of speaking doesn't matter to me. If your opponents aren't familiar with non case arguments, explain them. I have low tolerance for exploiting progressive arguments to win rounds. Don't spread opponents out if they can't handle speed. I will tank your speaks and depending on severity (don't test it) I will drop you. If you make problematic arguments (exclusionary to other debaters) I will drop you. I'm not too great myself with speed, but I can usually follow. Moderate speed is okay, but it's probably best not to spread. I might drop some args if you're too fast and I might call slow or clear.

I evaluate case by comparing contentions (also turns) and their impacts. I'll ask myself if you get access to your impacts with reasoning/links, if defensive arguments mitigate your impacts, and how your impacts compare against your opponents' impacts. I default to a utilitarian analysis and don't have too much experience debating other ethical frameworks.

I flow T with an interpretation, violation, standards, voters, and underview. I'll ask myself three questions about the argument. What did your opponents do wrong? Why should I care? How should I treat it in context of other arguments? If you answer those three questions, I'll have a good idea about how to evaluate it. If you don't specify, I'll treat T as an A priori voting issue, but I won't know how to evaluate it: your opponents might wiggle out.

I really liked kritikal debate. I didn't really run anything but Cap (lol), but I'll listen to other stuff. Just explain it really well. Try to link your framework back to actual material impacts: I don't really know how to evaluate stuff that doesn't link back to real things.

I said this'd be short but I don't know if it is. Hopefully it wasn't too much of a read! Have fun and good luck!

My experience is in high school pf- I'll flow but try to keep a reasonable speed, I'll let you know if it's not understandable. Weighing should happen in the round, set that up in summary etc. Tech>truth but make sure your argument is sound. You can use whatever techniques you want but make sure you explain your logic, don't assume I know what you're talking about or setting up. Should go without saying but respect each other- hateful language of any kind will not be tolerated and you can expect to be reported. I'll be giving everyone full speaks because charisma/clarity is a sus thing to measure. Other than that I don't have specifications other than have fun :)

Last update: 8 November, 2023 for NPDI

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

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

•Case

-Terminalize and weigh impacts

-Uniqueness must be in the right direction

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

-Read good, specific links

-No impacts, no offense

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

-Use warrants

•Theory and the such

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

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

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

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

-Weigh standards, voters

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

•Kritik

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

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

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

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

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

•Misc:

-I am not a points fairy.

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

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

-Have the condo debate, I don't default

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-don't be rude in cross

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

I have taken this down because I am no longer an active judge on the circuit. If you need to contact me my email is camgrigg@icloud.com

Hey! I'm Christopher (he/him, xe/xem) and I'm excited to be your judge! I'm an third-year undergrad student at UCLA pursuing Communication and Disability Studies. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round or email me at chris.p.ikonomou@gmail.com.

Experience:

I'm currently coaching parli at New Roads High School, and I’m a former parli debater and captain of the Menlo-Atherton High School debate team. I have 5 years of parli experience. My partner and I were in the top 10 of the NPDL rankings for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years, and I’m well versed in both lay and flow debate (I personally prefer the former).

TL;DR: I’m down to listen to anything you can get me to understand, but I prefer topical, warranted, and logical debates. Just make sure you explain yourself. Take a couple POIs.

Formalities:

Put your pronouns on Tabroom if you feel comfortable doing so! A small gesture can make the debate space a bit more comfortable for trans/nonbinary debaters (I know it helped me feel welcome). I don’t want to put you on the spot before the round by asking for pronouns, so only use pronouns your opponents have confirmed and use gender neutral language (partner, opponent, etc). On NSDA Campus and Zoom, you can edit your screen name to include your pronouns (if you feel inclined).

If you need an accommodation (be it related to a disability or something else) please ask before the round starts (or shoot me an email before). Remember this is supposed to be fun!

Case:

This is what I was best at. Good case debate will reward you. Have warrants for your claims/links, quantify, diversify, and weigh impacts. Tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents so I don't have to. Just saying "our impact negates/outweighs theirs" doesn't work if you don't give me any context for why, especially if the argument is less well known. Offense is important, tell me why they lose (and use that to prove that you win).

Good speaking is often associated with case debate. I personally enjoyed using rhetorical flourish myself when competing! However, you won't be penalized if speaking isn't your strong suit. I trust you're doing your best.

Theory:

I have a fairly high threshold for voting on theory. I need proven abuse to vote on theory and I default to reasonability. I will vote on theory that points out exclusion from the other side (speed, misgendering, etc).

Kritik:

Don't run an AFF K if you don’t disclose and give your opponents an opportunity to engage. NEG Ks are fine. I’ve run some projects about exclusion and my experience in the debate space, and I prefer criticisms that are genuine and have a link and alternative that effects actual change in the round or participants' mindset. Do not run identity-based Ks about groups you are not apart of (unless an instance of oppressive language/behavior happens in round about a marginalized group). If you lack experience responding to Ks, mention that in your speech and let me know how I should weigh your arguments against the K (i.e. should I rely more on logic than how many arguments you can counter, discussing current events are more impactful than theoretical debates, etc)

I can vote on other Ks, I just may not feel good about it. Explain anything related to literature well, especially terms and any abstract concepts (post-modernism is confusing and you probably want me to understand what you're talking about). I have little patience for debaters who run Ks just for an easy win against a less experienced team.

Speed:

Not too good at it. I’ll let you know if you’re going too fast (I’ll yell slow or clear). If you don’t listen, there's no guarantee I'll flow the rest of your speech). Don’t spread your opponents out, seriously.

Speaks:

Points are rewarded for speaking, humor, good strategy, etc. Average speaking will get a 27.

Enjoy yourselves. Debate was my thing in high school (I debated into out rounds instead of going to the hospital for a collapsed lung once in my junior year). Have fun, it’s not the end of the world, and ask any questions before and after round. (I’ll disclose with RFD if rules/time allows)

I will drop you if you are racist, transphobic, queerphobic, misogynistic, ableist, etc, even if your opponents don’t make it a big voting issue. I will lecture you in my RFD. You’ll also get the lowest speaks I can give you. Bad rhetoric is the first step towards violence and dehumanization in the real world.

I debated high school parli for four years, and I'm familiar with most of the jargon and stuff y'all will be using. I haven't debated in a while though, and I'd appreciate it if spreading is kept to a minimum and main points are gone over throughly. I will call clear and slow a few times but after that if you keep spreading i'll just be missing your arguments. I'll flow whatever you say, but I need you to tell me which arguments are important and flush out your impacts. I won't vote on anything unless you tell me to, basically I will flow whatever but I need argumentation on what's actually important and why I should vote on it.

Also, try to keep the structure of your contentions relatively simple. I'll still flow whatever you say, but I could get confused if you have too many subpoints or frivolous uniqueness. Definitely focus most on internal links and impact chains because I like that kind of stuff.

Impacts are very important but often overlooked, remember that at the end of the day I'm really only voting on your impacts. The other stuff is important, but without impacts I don't really care.

I'm cool with Kritiks, but I never really used them while debating and if you run one you'll need to explain it very throughly for me to vote on it. Honestly, unless it's a really good K I'd rather you just run normal stuff. I'm fine with everything else.

I like topicality arguments, but only when they're actually warranted. Don't try to shut people out of the round by running a bunch of shaky T. I don't like anything frivolous. Accessibility to debate is important to me and I really don't like it when people try to shut their opponents out of the round.

If you're rude or unwelcoming towards your opponents I will notice and I will do something about it. Don't lose a round or tank your speaker points trying to be petty, we're all trying to learn here. Same goes for any hint of racism, sexism, or just discrimination in general. Hopefully this won't happen, but if I hear any arguments that are problematic like this I will not be having it.

Keep it positive and be kind to each other, I'll be a fair judge to everyone.

Hi everyone, my name is Shiranthi. A little bit about my experience: I’ve been out of the debate community for the past two years now but before that I’ve qualified for TOC twice, attended Semis/Quarters at Cal Parli, Notre Dame, SCU 1 and 2, Stanford, NPDI, UOP etc. I’m currently a Managerial Economics major and Statistics minor at UC Davis (so I really like factual data!!)

Here is how I view a round: I REALLY LIKE IMPACTS, I think the quality of impact weighing can give a team a win. Though I have ran theory shells during my time as a debater, I dislike when a round boils down to the semantics of a theory shell or Kritik. But I think in some cases, it is absolutely necessary to have theory in the round, and in those cases, as long as you articulate well and sign post I’ll be ok. Advantage structure is really important as well, I need to see a clear link between your facts and how you’re getting to your impacts (especially if they’re very high in magnitude). While I believe defensive arguments are critical in a debate, I will be mainly focusing on offensive arguments when determining who wins on the flow. If you have any questions on this, feel free to ask me before the round :)

Spreading: I think the number one goal of a debate is to gain some kind of educational value from the discourse. I believe spreading to an extreme amount where no one can understand what is happening in a round is disadvantageous for both teams. I would prefer you speak at a reasonable pace but if you speak fast and the other team does not object, then I’m okay with it too.

Hey there!

My name is Shantanu (he/him/his), feel free to call me by my whitewashed name - Shaun. I judge: LD/PARLI/POFO/I.E./POLICY

A little context about me:

I am a sophomore at USC studying a bunch of interdisciplinary studies. I am a veteran debater, recently just moved to college. I debated for about 8 years in Los Angeles, with experience with lay debate and with circuit debate. Our team was small and underfunded, so I got to see all types of things in the debate community. My experience in debate started with speech. I continued speech throughout my debate career but then meshed PoFo to start an actual debate. I did POFO for 2 years but didn't enjoy the partner structure of debate - my partner was highkey an idiot - so I then moved to Lincoln Douglas and continued that through middle/HS for 5 years. My team was almost completely PARLI and POFO, so I had a lot of experience coaching and judging that as well. I am currently in the debate community as a judge for hire, as well as a drop in coach. I competed a little bit in college but didn't enjoy my time in British PARLI or Policy as much as I did in HS. Regardless, I am here to listen to you and hope to learn from you as well as contribute to your debate careers.

My Paradigms:

Spreading/Speeding: Im completely fine with it, no matter what the speed is; however, I will say that if you are not clear. and articulate, you will lose speaks. If you decide to spread, please make sure to have a case drop accessible for me to follow along and flow.

THEORY/K/OFF-CASE: I love creative argumentation, so I am totally game for this. make sure you explain your arguments well, but don't spend too much time on off-case. Get the argument in and move on, I do not need to know EVERY impact and little, however, I do need you to drive it home well. I expect you to be able to run your T/K/CP/whatever, but still argue the resolution and way above your opponent

IMPACTS MATTER: this is obv. however, don't spend too much time on the BS impacts that are extrapolations in a world that doesn't exist. If you are weighing your impacts as terminal impacts that really don't EXIST in this world, I have little care for them. Ask me to explain this more in the round if you would like.

VOTERS: Coming from an LD background, I like it when debaters bring their argument back to a weighing mech (i.e. Value/VC, a voter, a weigh, an observation, etc). I WON'T FLOW THINGS OR CONNECT THINGS I DO NOT HEAR YOU MENTION; however, I do not believe in abusive flowing. If you have a subpoint that is so small but your opponent doesn't say anything against it, I will not be giving you the points for that entire contention. I respect meaningful clash, and meaningful argumentation, so I won't let you get so nitty-gritty with your flow. At the same time though, I do value silence as a concession in the debate, so if you do not argue against an observation/contention/theory/weighing mech, I will probably continue to flow it.

JOKES: I love it when debaters through jokes / puns into the debate. I will def raise your speaks if you can do this effectively. Can't say I will max you out, but it will help

DONT BE AN A$$: Debate is about learning. I am totally for you being aggressive during XC and during POs, but as soon as something disrespectful/accusatory is said, I will def be taking it up with TAB. Respect your opponents, their pronouns, and their time.

LANGUAGE: If your cards site language other than English, it is fine as long as the majority of your impact and evidence can be translated for the judge and your opponent in English. Im all for bringing cultural context into the debate, however, don't be disrespectful.

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

(Pronouns: She/hers)

Howdy!

I have limited experience debating Parli but I have both competed and judged - my only requests: please don't spread (speaking moderately fast is totally fine, so long as I can understand you through the online format) and thoroughly explain progressive args if you will be using them (I am very open to learning and will do my absolute best to understand the args presented to me!!). I was a PF debater all four years of HS (for Riverside STEM) and haven't had much exposure to progressive arguments or speed. I will be flowing thoroughly and appreciate both line-by-line and narrative-centered debates (balancing both = probably winning my ballot) - please debate in a way that makes you comfortable.

Misc:

Love brink args!! But if you want to win them on my flow - at least 2-3 well warranted links (more for war/nuke wars)

Least familiar w/ K debate, comfortable w/ theory, plans, CP, PICs, fiat, presumption, V/VC framing etc. (If you want to know my familiarity with a brand of argumentation, feel free to ask before we start or assume no prior knowledge)

Will do my best to limit intervention - make it easier for me by: being very explicit (don't make me assume something is wrong/BAD, tell me why) and giving me comparative weighing (or other path to ballot analysis) starting from the first neg and extended cleanly.

Speaks all start at 29, make me laugh and I will boost.

I have the utmost respect for y'all debating through this online format and want to create a welcoming in-round environment.

Racist, sexist, or otherwise clearly offensive/problematic args will automatically lose my ballot.

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.

Background:

Competed in Public Forum and Parliamentary style debate in high school, along with entering in DI, TI, Duo, and Impromptu. Went to States in TI (semi-finalist) and Nationals in TI and World Schools.

Debate Preferences:

I want on-case debate. If you come into Aff constructive rejecting the resolution, I am going to be heavily inclined to give you the loss. Likewise, if your Neg theory shell is non-topical, it will count against you. Do not run a K, do not spread, and do not be extratopical unless you want an L.

I dislike the strategy of throwing as many statistics in an argument as humanly possible and letting them speak for themselves. Explain why your numbers are important, don't just throw them at me. I will value a better explained and nuanced argument over one comprised of only statistics.

Most importantly, remember that debate exists to discuss policy and understand foreign perspectives, whether that be your motivation to participate or not. Treat your opponent with respect. You don't know their social, economic, or educational background, nor is it your (or anyone's) place to disrespect it. You can have fun in the round and still create thoughtful, argumentative discussion. Please keep this in mind in-round.

Bonus speaker point if you can make me laugh :P

Speech Preferences:

Not too much to say here. I know that speech rounds can be tedious and repetitive. That doesn't mean every single speaker isn't deserving of your attention and respect. Clap for speakers, be encouraging. Don't be afraid to laugh or react to a speech because it might elevate their ranking above yours; it won't. If anything, it will make you look more attentive and supportive. You can compete without being toxic. We're all spending a lot of time and money to be here, might as well have fun with it :)

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

Hello,

I am a flowish judge. I’ll definitely flow. I did varsity parliamentary debate for 4 years TOC 2 times, and went to SJDI for LD. I have limited experience in PF and Congress also. I have run all the arguments you can think of, truth testing, friv theory, Daoism, util blipstorm, etc. that being said I’m heavily inclined to believe Kritiks are cheating, as is spreading but I’m tabula rasa so idc what you run. Just have clear links and explain the lit well, I don’t want to judge a debate on D&G without an explanation precluding the alt. That being said I prefer case debate, however enjoy good theory. I think speaker points are dumb and will probably give you decent speaking points unless you say something offensive. Defaults: Net benefits, Neg on presumption, Probably a policy round, theory is a priori with competing interps. All are subject to change if you just say otherwise. Will disclose if you want. Don't try and read my facial expressions, because they don't mean anything.

if you can't spread don't try to spread. I'll call slow, if you're just too fast for me, but I won't call clear, because that's you're job as a speaker, instead, I will just stop flowing.

have fun

I did high school parliamentary debate four years, so I have quite a bit of experience and knowledge of the activity. Personally, I prefer case over theory, but I can understand theory and understand that sometimes it is necessary in round. I have a little bit of K knowledge, but so if you do run a K, please try and make it as clear as possible for me and the other team what your links are. I'm also Tabula Rasa as much as possible so if your opponent brings something up, try not to leave it unrefuted! I was a second speaker in parli, so sign-posting is a huge thing I look for.

Other than that, I care if you speak clearly and use logical arguments. Ultimately, speaking style does not really matter to 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!

She/Her

If you know you know.

2/18/24 Update - Final Update:

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

*Updated for TOC 2023:

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

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

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

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

Be accessible or I won't be against intervening

Some other notes:

General:

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

Signpost, slow on tags, repeat interps.

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

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

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

Case:

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

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

Case turns only would be interesting to watch.

Theory:

Down for theory debates

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

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

Will default competing interpretations

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

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

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

Ks:

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

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

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

Assume I haven’t heard of your lit.

TLDR: Speed fine, condo bad, Ks good, topical please, theory good, put me on the email chain: domlesaca@gmail.com

I competed in Parli/LD at the University of the Pacific. I am a first year out so most of my thoughts are still directly impacted by my own time in debate and my views will probably change the more I judge. I know nothing about courts so if it is a SCOTUS topic please break it into little bits that my baby brain will understand. I am annoyed by the amount of back-filling in most MOs and because of that am more willing to accept PMR arguments against MO blowups of blippy LOC tags. The most important thing to know is that I am lazy by nature so whoever gives me simplest route to the ballot will probably win.

Delivery:

I should be able to handle speed just fine so long as you remain clear, and if I have trouble following then I will call "speed" or "clear". Just make sure everyone has access to the round and you will be fine. For online tournaments please just bring down the speed a notch or two, spreading over zoom calls tends to sound like static over the line and that is just annoying.

Advantages and Disadvantages:

Be sure your tags are clear and number your arguments as much as possible as it makes it much easier to flow. That applies to all of the stuff below. DA debate is probably my favorite kind of debate to watch, especially when the scenarios are very specific to the topic and the aff. Offense is great but 100% loses to better warranted defense. I dont have a default preference for certain impacts over another but high magnitude impacts do make the the decision take less thought when teams dont do their own impact comparison.

Theory:

I always enjoyed debating theory. My threshold on T is fairly low, this means I don't need proven abuse but if you do give me proven abuse you basically have my ballot. Spec is mostly just used to waste people's time but if you have reasons why specification is key for ground on the resolution or specific plan then I am on board. Reasonability can mean a lot of things, you should tell me what it means to you so I know how to evaluate it. Any theory about reading the plan in the first X minutes will make me upset, that is a bad argument and you should feel bad for running it. In my mind the team answering theory needs some kind of counter interp, if you just read offense against T or framework without one I will just default to "the only game in town" rule.

Counter Plans:

Parli - Conditional advocacies are bad.

Other events - I am sympathetic to condo bad but have a higher threshold on the condo bad shell but you should justify why it is good/bad in the specific debate format you are in. I will vote for cheater CPs (states, consult, delay), but I am also very willing to vote on theory against them. The neg will be more likely to win these theory arguments if you show me how the CP is an important issue in the topic lit. For delay, the neg will have to win solid probability on their DA to convince me their is a net benefit to the CP. I generally think of perms as a test of competition if you want to make it an advocacy, you need to debate it out in round. In general I believe introducing a negative advocacy also flips presumption to the affirmative.

K's:

Ks are great, I just may need more explanation of what the alt actually does and will be annoyed if the neg refuses to explain the K until the MO. I dont think that Ks need frameworks to be competitive but probably still need to solve or outweigh the aff then. The Alt should provide some mechanism to solve what you are critiquing, if it is just reject I am going to need some specific framing or historical example where rejecting has been successful in fighting what you are critiquing. My wheelhouse has generally been neolib, Agamben, death denialism (not death drive), ableism, and security. Don't be afraid to go outside of those examples but be sure to explain it well for me.

K affs:

Aff Ks are fine but I still prefer you to be topical and actually affirm the resolution. If you negate or just ignore the resolution on the aff then we are gonna have some problems. You don't necessarily have to defend fiat but be sure to defend why your framework provides for equitable debate (I.E. you probably shouldn't force the neg to defend racism as their only ground). Performance Ks can be a bit confusing if not explained well so be sure to tell me how your performance solves and give me framework so I know how to evaluate it.

Evidence:

I think disclosure in evidence based debate is generally good. Please dont be stingy on sharing evidence with your opponents. I follow along with evidence read in round but I will only read it in depth if I am told to or need to resolve an issue. I dont totally disregard good analytics but evidence is generally preferred if possible.

Speaker Points:

I generally start at 29 and then rank down at a difference of about .5 points. If someone does something really interesting or funny I'll put them at a 30. I may alter the scale if you spread out a novice team.

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.

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

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

Experience:

My name is Sarah (Neubaum) Matchett and I competed in high school public forum debate at Pennsbury for 4 years, and parliamentary debate at Wheaton College for 4 years. Following my graduation, I have coached and judged college parliamentary debate for several schools and currently coach for University of Minnesota.

Overview:

I evaluate the debate the debaters have. I am open to policy, kritiks, performance, theory, etc. just tell me what I should prefer and why. If you want to mix policy and critical arguments, go for it. That is almost exclusively how I debated and I love critical impacts. Just make sure not to contradict yourself, or go for too much. Weigh. Please. Everyone is happier at the end of the round if there is clear weighing. Please slow down if I clear you. I have judged throughout this year for high school and college and haven't had any technical issues on my end (yet) but sometimes the medium works better when debaters slow down a tad, in my opinion. I can keep up with spreading, but please keep that in mind.

AD/DA/CP Debate:

I will vote on post-fiat impact stories if you win the policy debate and win the importance of those impacts. Make sure you have clear links. If your opponent points out massive holes in your link story, I am inclined to listen. The burden is on you to keep your link story in tact, especially if you have high magnitude impacts. I generally default to probability and prefer systemic impacts, but ultimately, I will weigh however I am told to weigh, with the most compelling reasons.

Kritiks:

I will vote on the K if you win the K, and that the K has the most important sheets in the round. Make sure you have a clear alternative and alt solvency. Please don’t assume I know your author, or that your opponents do, and always explain any lit you reference. If you are new to debate and don’t understand what your opponents are talking about, ask questions. If you feel your opponents are excluding you from the round by failing to answer your questions clearly, invoking terms and authors you don’t know, etc, point it out.

Theory:

I will vote on theory if you win the theory debate. I ran a wide variety of theory arguments -- common ones and occasionally ventured into new territory. Make sure you have a clear interpretation. Make sure you explain the impacts of your standards/voters.

Performance:

I will vote for a performance debate if the performing team wins the role of the ballot and/or the role of the judge and/or wins arguments about why the performance comes first. I appreciate the way performance debates bring real world issues to the forefront of debate rounds and confronts them head on. I have gained appreciation for performance debates over the years, and believe them to be extremely valuable to our community and beyond. I do not need to be made comfortable or included or added to your movement to vote for you, but I do appreciate clarity, especially in performance debates, about how you want me to evaluate the round. If you are opposing a performance, I would highly encourage you to engage the arguments as best you can. I will vote on framework, if framework arguments are properly explained to be the most important.

Inclusion:

I expect all debaters to be cordial and respectful of one another. If you are asked to make accommodations for a disability, I expect you to comply to the best of your ability. I will vote on theory arguments or kritiks that demonstrate exclusion if they are well warranted, and am more lenient about structure in these instances if there is demonstrated abuse. Debate is a game, but it is also the real world. Don’t forget that you are talking to and about real people, and that I am a real person in the back of the room. If you are reading arguments about abuse, sexual assault, suicide etc PLEASE READ A CONTENT WARNING. I would appreciate that any discussion of these issues (which I am absolutely okay with; these are important issues that must be discussed) remain as free of graphic descriptions as possible. If graphic descriptions are central to your argument, that is okay, but please be advised that it makes it much more difficult to evaluate the round objectively.

Speaker Points:

27-30, unless you do something incredibly rude or exclusionary.

If you have questions after the round, I would be more than happy to try to answer them. If you would like to talk in person, you are free to come find me, and if you would like to contact me to talk later, ask me to put my email on the ballot.

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!

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.

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

Judging Background: I competed at both the community college debate level and the 4-year university level and am a current competitor for UC Berkeley. I have 2 years of Parli experience as well as extensive high school judging experience in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Policy. My paradigm will mainly be related to parli, but I have many thoughts on other events, so I’d be happy to discuss them prior to the round. I will always make time for competitor questions.

The TL;DR of my paradigm is that I will vote for just about anything, but I like case a lot, LOVE theory and Ks at the bottom of my debate arg hierarchy. I try to be tabula rasa so I will nevertheless do my best to intervene as little as possible, but I recommend the following notes as things to keep in mind when you debate in front of me!

Case debate: Smart (topical) approaches to rounds are always appreciated! Make your case clear and signpost properly or else you will lose me on the flow. Make your links strong and have well-developed impact stories, and make sure to collapse properly and weigh your arguments well. I like ads, disads, and counterplans, so feel free to run it all! I will vote for an abusive counterplan, but I will also vote on well-articulated CP theory (PICs bad, Delay bad).

Theory: I also enjoy theory and am def willing to vote on most theory shells. Make sure you’ve got your interps, standards, counter-interps, and counter-standards or it’s going to be a difficult time and I will be sad. If debaters don’t articulate a framework to evaluate the theory through, I will default to competing interpretations. To me, this is literally weighing the interp vs the counter-interp by using the standards and counter-standards as the uniqueness. I don’t like RVIs because I think theory is an important check so if you’re going for one, you should have a good reason.

Kritiques: I’m down for the K but it’s not my favorite thing to judge. I will definitely vote for them if you win the flow, but please make sure you make all components of it clear! If the argument isn’t made clear, I will be hesitant to vote on it. This is a particular problem with post-structuralist arguments that rely on a lot of lit that I most certainly have not read, so I can’t backfill anything for you and will avoid doing so no matter what you read. If your opponents are lost, chances are that I am as well. Make your links rock-solid and your alt solvency crystal-clear and that will be your route to the ballot.

K Affs: Most of the above applies here, but since I believe that debate has inherent value in at least discussing the topic in a substantial way so if you run one, please PLEASE contextualize it to the resolution and explain why you couldn’t defend a topical policy action. Framework-T is a great out for any negative strat against an aff-k.

Here are some other general thoughts I have on parli:

Conditionality: I believe that Condo is not a very good thing, and while I will not vote you down for being condo, I may be predisposed to lean towards a decent Condo Bad shell.

Speed: I can largely keep up, but don’t abuse your ability to spread! Make sure that the round is inclusive to everyone involved or debate is no fun. If you are incomprehensible, I will not hesitate to call “clear” or “slow” and I expect you to afford your opponents that same respect. If I miss something on the flow, it’s probably your fault.

Partner Communication: Since Parli is a team game, I expect communication to happen and I encourage it, as long as you are respectful while your opponents are speaking! I will also only flow what the current speaker says, so be aware of that when feeding arguments.

Speaker Points: I’m a point fairy! The top speaker will get 30, followed by 29.5, 29, 28.5. If I happen to give out something lower, I should have a justification and some constructive criticism on my ballot for you.

IVI's and RVI's: I have a high threshold for both IVI's and RVI's. If they are unresponded to, however, I will be forced to evaluate them.

P.S. I will be a very happy judge if you have clever taglines on your DA’s and AD’s :’)

I have four years of high school Parliamentary debate experience along with some familiarity with British Parli on the college circuit and am familiar with theoretical and critical debate. That said, I am averse to technical debate strategies that are used when only tenuously linked to the topic/case/round.

I am not a fan of spreading. If I can’t understand what you’re saying I won’t write it on the flow.

Please signpost, the easier it is for me to keep track of your arguments, the easier it is for me to count them in your favour at the end, this also applies when addressing your opponents' arguments.

I don’t want to be an intervening judge but if you are severely damaging the education of the round, (ex through bigotry or blatant misinformation) I will.

emailchain: passapungchai@gmail.com

Current:PhD student @Rice

Past: Mountain House '18, UCLA '22,

Debate stock**, do flay LD. No spreading. Actually try to talk persuasively, not just at 300 wpm. I am not that fast anymore, I do not coach, and I don't even read the topics. You have been warned.

** I like fun arguments still and can get quite bored of stock. If you run zanier things, just take the time to explain better.

TL;DR:

Efficiency, strategic collapsing, weighing >>> generic card dump

I do not like seeing theory shells in PF. Please do not do it. Debate substance. Pretend that I'm a very well-read parent judge at this point

I did PF and believe debate is a game meant to be done with some flair. i’ve judged lots of ld, pf and parli (circuit, trad, whatever) at this point, can handle speed (hit me with your best shot), but I’m also older and don’t spread in my daily life. By the way, the faster you go, the more you should enunciate... People are getting worse and worse at spreading... If you can do LARP, please do LARP. If you don't LARP, procedural arguments are also good (I love T debate), theory is fine, just be clean on the flow and your extensions.. Be mindful that I am not super familiar with it. K's are okay, heed the warnings in bold below.I won't vote on any argument I don't understand; my threshold for voting on something convoluted that you spread at me is much higher. That being said, if you explain a creative, strategic argument well and carefully --> more speaks and my ballot. Entertain me, and you will be rewarded.

Condo bad

"The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote."

I study engineering, so I like to consider myself an engineer/scientist in training. if a card is important to my decision, I call for it. If I find that you misrepresented it, put it out of context, whatever, I won't consider it and will tank your speaks. That being said, clever indicts against your opponents' evidence, or knowing their evidence better than they do will majorly help your speaks. Show that mastery of the topic in cross and in your speeches.

Tech >> truth, I can vote on anything and everything, and I don't believe in any form of judge intervention whatsoever. That doesn't mean you should run terrible -ism arguments, just that you can and I will consider it in my decision like any other position. However, my threshold for your opponent to call you out on it and drop it is much, much lower (because these arguments are always objectionable under normative ethics frameworks, and you have to do extra work to prove otherwise, I default normative ethics if there's no FW clash here).

for judging LD/Policy/Parli: **HATE FRIV THEORY and tricks, NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH KRITIKAL POSITIONS except very neolib, biopolitics, and especially, THE FEM K. If you run a K, explain it well. I've definitely gotten slower (I'm 5 years out and I no longer coach), so don't spread so quickly that you start foaming at the mouth. I can handle 300-500 wpm (this is different from online debate comfort levels, read that section). Stock issues, case, LARP, love science centered cases --> good. Don't bite each other in cross/flex.

If you run friv theory despite my warnings, and the round becomes a friv theory/trix wash of a massive shitshow on both sides, I will drop the team/debater that read the first shell. Consider yourself warned. ~~

If I stop flowing or put my pen down, you're either going too fast, or you're wasting your time by saying what you are saying, so you should switch strats immediately.

I hate frivolous theory & RVIs, so I have a much higher threshold for voting on it. I prefer case debate, but if you don't wanna do that, that's your call.

Online Stuff:

It's become clear to me that over the online format, spread is just much more unintelligible than usual. Slow down. Speed is just you compensating for inefficiency, and I'm more receptive to efficiency than anything else. If you are efficient and stay below / around 250 wpm, I will boost your speaker points by a lot. Thank you for adapting to the format.

I'm also a lot more receptive to ableism, speed K args that are triggered by shitty spread in the online format. this is an actual issue and problem that I think matters given the circumstances... Haven't heard a good shell for this, but if you run it, I will like it.

~~~

PF prefs:

I think first speaking teams are structurally disadvantaged in PF (first summary is arguably the hardest speech to give), so if there is no offense generated in the round, absolute wash, then I default to the first speaking team.

Please weigh. Probability, Scope, and Magnitude. Impact Calculus is good. Weighing needs to start in the summary speech, maybe even the second constructive. In general, good debaters tend to be very good at weighing. Comparative statements are also good: "Even if they win [arg tag], if we win [arg tag], you vote us up because [....]"

NSDA has given summary speeches another minute.. 2nd summary better have defense, both summaries better have comparative weighing. I have a MUCH LOWER tolerance for ships passing in the night now.

Give me a roadmap, and follow it. Signpost frequently. Card by card extensions are good, and please have good warranting. 2nd summary better have defense. Don't be a jerk in x-fire.

On evidence, if a particular card is very important to my decision, I will call for it. If you misrepresented it, then I won't consider the offense/defense it generated on your side. Evidence ethics are terrible in PF. If a team tells me to call for a card, I will call for it. If all your cards seem to be terrible, I'll tank your speaks.

ONLINE PF SPECIFIC PREFS:

PF usually doesn't have emailchains, but since audio can be faulty, people can cut out for a second, please send me and your opponents the case, cut cards should be attached in a separate document (assuming you paraphrased). This saves everyone time when cards are asked to be seen during prep anyway, and I think it's a net good for education + accessibility.

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

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

Hello!

Quick stuff: debate is cool and should be fun and enjoyable for all. Also see these rankings based on my level of knowledge or comfort voting on, from most comfortable to least:

1. Policy/ case debate

2. Kritiks

3. Most theory

4. Non-T Aff

5. Weird theory

None of that is to say that I won't vote on the lower-ranked things, I'll just need more explanation. Also, I'm okay with listening to RVIs but I probably have a high threshold for voting.

Background

I'm Arshita (she/they) and I'm a recent graduate from UOP. In my last season I was the top speaker at the 2022 NPDA national tournament, but I have not been involved in any kind of debate since April up to the time of editing this paradigm (11/12/22). That said, I have roughly 8 years of debate experience (mostly high school PF, NPDA, and NFA LD) and feel comfortable listening to most things with the hope that you are comfortable with your strategy and are able to present a good quality debate.

I want to include one of my former coach's paradigms here because he's a big inspiration of mine and I pretty much agree with how he views debate.

"The metaphor of the highway patrol: On top of being a decision making robot, I think part of my job as a judge is refereeing but I try to perform that function like a member of the highway patrol. If you are driving 70 in a 65 and no one calls to complain about your driving making them unsafe I am probably going to let you drive along. If you are going 95 in a 65 and I deem that as a clear and present danger to the drivers you share the road with, I will likely feel obligated to get involved. Most of the time that will probably just result in a warning or fix-it ticket unless something particularly egregious occurs. Drive approximately the speed of traffic and recognize that you share this road with a variety of people with different backgrounds, abilities, and experiences that might inform how they approach their travels.

Actual Debate Philosophy Stuff: In an ideal world I believe the Aff should be topical and the Neg should be unconditional. I’m partial to defense and think it can absolutely be terminal. I vote on kritiks as long as I understand them and especially their solvency mechanism and mutual exclusivity. I am not comfortable judging on the basis of your identity or anyone else’s. I am more likely to have your arguments if you go 85% of your top speed. The PMR should be small, the LoR should be preemptive. I will do my best to protect from new arguments in the rebuttals. Most RVI’s are dumb. If the format has rules I take them seriously but assuming neither side cares about those rules I am willing to just let the competitors play. I think you introducing a performance into the round and straying away from “traditional” debate invites me to make my decision on the basis of whether that performance was particularly compelling or cool."

Parli Specific Stuff

Splitting the block. No.

Protecting the rebuttals. I'll try my best but call the POO anyways please.

Tag-teaming. Don't care but I will get annoyed if you are feeding your partner their speech.

Presumption. The neg gets this unless there is a CP/alternative in which case the negative has the burden of proving their advocacy is better than both the aff and the status quo.

MG theory. This is fine and sometimes even cool.

Competing Interps vs Reasonability. I default to competing interps unless I'm compelled to evaluate under a different standard. You don't need proven abuse to win your theory shell unless I'm evaluating under reasonability. And please tell me what reasonability means.

Permutations. Please read them. I don't think these are advocacies, but are tests of whether the CP/alt is competitive with the aff.

For other things, you should ask me. My email is arshita.237@gmail.com. Have fun!

Background

I did policy debate in high school, coached HS parli for Campolindo when I was in college, and now I haven't done any debate in a while.

The rest of this paradigm is from several years ago, when I was more active. I don't think much has changed in the way I'll assess a round, but I'm probably less familiar with trendy arguments than I used to be.

***

Paradigm

• I would consider myself a fairly standard flow judge.
• I can handle speed. I will tell you in-round to clear/slow down as needed.
• I will listen to most every argument and most every impact.
• Walk me through my decisionmaking process. Linearly, how do I get to where I vote?
• Be competitive, but be friendly.

Ramblings

Here are a lot of opinions/things I default to. All of these will be overridden by arguments made in round. That should make this list fairly useless.

Rituals, disclosure

• Don’t thank anyone, dress up, or stand up on my behalf. Debate however you will debate best.
• Off-time roadmaps are coolio.
• Please don’t shake my hand.
• Be friendly. Win your rounds, be strategically aggressive, posture… but at the end of the day, debate is a good place for mutual enthusiasm, support, and respect. If you make someone feel unwelcome, it’ll be reflected on my ballot.
• I have yet to encounter a scenario in which I do not vote one way or the other.
• If a tournament schedule allows it, I’m comfortable giving feedback after the round. I will probably not disclose my decision unless it’s specifically encouraged by the tournament organizers.

Aff disclosure

I think disclosure is pretty cool. I’m willing to vote neg on disclosure theory if the argument is made well (see: Theory).

General strategy

• I never heard of “trichot” in Policy, but I want a debate with a concrete advocacy (political or kritikal) whenever possible.
• No matter what, please read specific links.
• I’m fine voting for a non-topical aff if you win the theoretical debate.
• Use POIs strategically to throw off a speaker. If you’re a speaker, taking POIs is typically a good strategic call.
• Very specific arguments are almost always good!
• For speaker points, I prefer debaters who debate well to those who win. These two are not necessarily linked, but debating well is important for debate as a whole and I hope we all try to do it.

Theory

• Go ahead, read the theory everyone tells you is annoying! I’m down with multiple topicality, spec shells, etc. Just do it well, please.
• Potential offense on theory is not nearly as valuable as specifically articulated misuse of the debate. e.g. if neg reads conditional positions but doesn’t kick anything, why do I care that the arguments were conditional?
• Conditionality
• I tend to think conditionality is good.
• • Use conditionality to highlight the most important negative arguments; don’t use it to waste time.
  • Before kicking a conditional position, resolve offense and extend defense to mitigate it as much as possible.
• Dispositionality: I don’t think this differs substantially from conditionality. I don’t think dispositionality’s disclosure answers “condo bad” arguments, so calling your arg dispo isn’t a get-out-of-theory-free card.

Counterplans

• Absent an articulated framework, I default to evaluate the counterplan like a mutual exclusivity disadvantage.
• Counterplans should be textually or functionally competitive. Net benefits are typically uncompelling.
• If you compete via net benefits, those net benefits should be rock solid versus the perm.
• Here are some counterplans I like:
  • Short delay
  • Word PICs
• Here are some counterplans I don’t like:
• • Long delay
  • Consult
• Permutations
• • Give me a perm text––”do the plan and all non-competitive parts” doesn’t count.
  • I’m friendly to theory that says multiple blippy permutations are bad.
  • Permutations are never, ever advocacies. Giving a rebuttal advocating the perm world as anything but a response to the CP is a bad habit and a good way to get dropped on theory.

Kritiks

• Read specific links. My threshold is pretty high for generic state/cap links.
• Avoid identity args that aren’t specific to your identity.
• I hesitate to vote on performative contradiction. Exception: representations kritiks, discourse links, kritiks with pre-fiat implications.
• I’m plenty open to “cap good,” “heg good,” “realism is real,” etc.
• Framework
• • I want to feel comfortable with my vote, and a good discussion on framework achieves that. I will gladly ignore parts of the debate if there’s a sound theoretical reason to do so.
  • Reading a K? Read framework! Feel free to try to moot the aff by whatever method you like.
  • Answering a K? Read framework! Feel free to try to moot the K by whatever method you like.
• Lit I love
• • Poststructuralism: biopower and its derivatives, Foucauldian sex/gender theory, Foucauldian ableism, Derrida…
  • Representations: security, terror talk, ableism…
  • Orientalism.
  • In general, epistemology kritiks are up my alley.
• Lit I kind of know
• • Baudrillard
  • Afropessimism
  • Lacanian psychoanalysis
• Lit I’m not super familiar with
• • Identity args
  • Nietsche
  • Schizoanalysis
  • Obscure/technical ontology args
  • Very happy to listen to/vote on all of the above, just give me a good explanation of terms of art as they come up so I don’t accidentally vote wrong. It’s on whoever reads the kritik to make sure I understand.

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.

I did four years of Parliamentary Debate for John Swett High School and now I am with Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley.

If you don't read my paradigm (or even if you did) because it's too long, you don't have time, or maybe you just don't feel like it, don't sweat it. Feel free to ask me any questions about my preferences before the debate starts.

General:

Tech over truth. Truth is fleeting. The flow is forever. I will not intervene if at all possible and that means I vote based on my flow. Don't be right. Win. Debate is a competition after all.

The only point at which I intervene is if the Aff and Neg don't articulate their win conditions. In absence of in-round layering, I default to layering in the order: theory, kritik, case. In absence of impact weighing, I weigh impacts within these layers myself. For your sake, I might as well flip a coin to decide the winner. Decide the winner of the debate for me. Do effective layering with proper warrants, weigh impacts, and lay out to me every single last route to the ballot for your team. If you do this and your opponents don't, you will probably win handily.

Clarity is key. If I don't understand what you're saying or where you are on the flow, how can you win? Roadmaps, whether off- or on-time, are essential for me to flow effectively. Signpost like your life depends on it. When responding to the opposing team, I should know where you are at all times. The clearer you are, the more decisive your win will be.

Keep speed reasonable. If you're going too fast I will say "slow". If I can't hear you clearly I will say "clear". Your opponents have the right to make the same requests of you. Otherwise, I wouldn't worry about me not catching anything.

POIs should be reserved to clarify information not to interrogate. If you want to make a point save it for your speech. If you missed something or don't understand an argument, ask away. Take POIs if you have time, but I won't penalize teams for not taking POIs due to time constraints.

I will guard against new arguments in the rebuttals but POO anyway. I could very well miss something and I certainly will not penalize you for POOs.

All texts should be read twice and read at a speed so I can write them word for word. Texts include plans, counterplans, advocacies, interpretations, roll of the ballot, etc. Exact wording matters.

In the rebuttal, don't spend time giving me a play-by-play. Extend the arguments you win and explain how that gives you the win. Don't feel like you have to repeat arguments beyond identifying them.

Tag-teaming is a-ok by me. Just know that I will only flow the speaker. So if you talk during your partner's speech, they must repeat or articulate whatever argument you want to be made.

Case Debate:

In high school, I exclusively did case debate. I know what's up so go crazy. In general, use uniqueness/claim, link, impact structure for advantages and disadvantages. I won't penalize you if this structure is implied and not explicitly stated but please clearly signpost your arguments. It can only hurt you if you don't. Termanlizing impacts is essential. Raising the stock market isn't termanalized, but improving value to life via increased employment is. I care about (1) death, (2) suffering, and (3) value to life. Connect the dots for me because I won't on my own.

When it comes to counter plans, I'm definitely down for whatever. Go for condo or don't. However, I am amenable to theory arguments that certain counterplans are abusive (multiple actors, condo, etc.). Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies. If the plan and the counterplan aren't mutually exclusive, go for net benefits, instead. Gimmick counterplans don't avoid the perm. Saying you use the funding from the plan for the counterplan is hyper-specificity that doesn't count in my book.

Theory:

Theory is dope when it's approp. I am amenable to theory arguments, but my threshold for frivolous theory is higher than say topicality. Clearly signpost your arguments so I know where you are. Do proper layering so I know that theory preempts the case. Clearly state the rule that is violated as the interpretation, otherwise its hard to justify voting on theory. I will not vote on poorly run or sloppy theory.

Kritik:

Run it if you know it. My opinion on poorly run kritiks is the same as for poorly run theory: I won't vote on it. The more closely tied an affirmative-kritik is to the resolution, the more inclined I am to vote on it. If you run a non-topical or "project" kritik you better give me a damn good reason to vote it. Or, better yet, run something else. I need a clear roll of the judge text and clear structure with signposting. Again, remember to layer. Also, run your kritik as if I haven't read the literature you have, because I haven't.

Speaker Points:

They're archaic, sexist, racist, and probably terrible in a million other ways. So my speaker points aren't tied to style or persuasive ability. Good argumentation means good speaks.

Reasons I will nuke your speaks:

(1) Attempting to exclude your opponents from the debate in any way.

(2) Violent language toward any group (protected groups, especially).

(3) Explicitly rude behavior. Very high bar. Like calling your opponents stupid or interrupting their speech to yell at them. Just don't do anything dumb.

Welcome to my paradigm. My name is Daniel Sorial, and I debated in High School for the Academy of Information Technology and Engineering (AITE for short) for three years, the latter two heavily in parliamentary. I'm now a junior at Yale, and a member of the Yale Political Union.

As a judge, I most value weighing and effective rhetoric. Final speeches on both sides should go off the flow and paint the bigger picture. Why does any of this matter? What are the future implications of passing or not passing this motion? 

As per debate techniques, spreading within reason is acceptable. Feel free to speak faster than conversational pace, but necessitating hyperventilation does not pair well with good rhetoric. Spreading should be avoided, but I understand if it is necessary. If you genuinely can't offer your entire case in your first speech, you can give more arguments in the second speech. If you think of a new argument before the second speeches, give it. However, purposefully designing your first two speeches to give some arguments in one and others in the other is bad debate etiquette because it does not allow full engagement by your opponents. It therefore ought not necessitate the same level of refutation. As for other things, Ks and T-Shells are fine, but explain them well incase your opponents are not familiar. Different parts of the country have different techniques, so use them as you please, but ensure everyone is on the same page.

In parliamentary, take POIs, as it shows you have control over your speech. You should offer multiple to your opponents in every speech you can, though the speaker should only take one or two.

I appreciate civility, but being too nice is awkward. 

Good luck!

Adam Stone (he/his)

About me: I have four years of experience on the Nor Cal Parli circuit for Bishop O'Dowd, I am at American University school of Foreign Service in Washington DC and major in International Relations.

Beyond the debating:

This is just a general note: don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. I see this less often on overt transgressions but there are many times where the language we use can be extremely problematic and we as community need to work to fix.

to counteract this is if you feel comfortable please share how you want to be referred in the round/ pronouns I will try and ask at the beginning of rounds but I may forget. If I don't remember, please refer to your opponents as "opponents" or "they" or "them" so we don't accidentally marginalize or misgender those in our community.

Additionally, if you act rude in the round either towards your partner or your opponents, I will lower your speaker points drastically, and while I will not vote you down strictly off of your behavior I will look for a reason to vote you down.

Secondly, I generally try not to show emotion when people are reading off their arguments however, I will occasionally make weird faces, this is not me judging the quality of the arguments or delivery of them but rather, it is me thinking how they fit into the greater debate. In summary: Ignore My facial expressions

Actual Paradigm- generally tech over truth- but like I think there is a gray area in-between

-My favorite type of debate is case with critical impacts or classic case; but I will try and follow a real K but I may botch the decision due to lack of experience with critical arguments

1. speed: Because we are online please don't go that fast just in case either internet has trouble or have trouble hearing. I would say about 2x to 2.5x normal talking speed is where you should try and cap yourself in an online setting. I won't vote u down if u go fast you just risk the fact I might not hear you or your opponents run an abuse theory.

- I protect the flow but I may miss something, if it is vital to your case I would call a POI once. After that I will pay super close attention to what is being said and you don't have to repeatedly interrupt them.

Classic case debate: In summary- do impact calc and tell me why you win my ballot. This is was my bread and butter as a debater and I have the most experience evaluating these debates. You do not need the formalities of introducing yourself as the first/second speaker and etc, just give me a road map and start your case.

Aff

1. try and have a clear top of case, the funding is not super important unless there is a literature base saying that the USFG or whoever else can't afford it. Make sure you have clearly stated in your plan text what you do . Advantages with a kritical aspect to them are appreciated but general impacts that are terminalized are good too.

It is not recommended you reject the res with me as a judge but if you do I will weigh the round how I am told to; however, if there is a wash on the definitions debate/ theory of rejecting I am likely to buy the abuse of not being able to interact. I am not super comfortable judging identity based arguments but if you feel that it is essential to your ability to exist in the debate please do lots of explaining and make clear how your opponents and I can evaluate/interact with the arguments without attacking/scrutinizing your experiences.

Neg- run whatever you want CP, theory, Da- just do impact calc- also NO VAGUE Cps- a cp is a counter policy and must have at least this 1.an actor, 2. an actual plan text, 3. advantage to the cp/ reason to prefer over the perm, without you saying what it is exactly you do I will not vote off of it.

K-

I most likely don't know your lit base. Even if I do, I shouldn't be intervening, just because I know about what you are trying to argue, that's your job. I'm cool hearing Kritiks and can evaluate them so long as you do the work of impact calculus. Please interact with the Aff arguments and make arguments as to why me voting on this k right now, right here makes the difference.

Aff K- if you do go in this direction please make kritical arguments around passing the plan or have good reason why you are no longer using the state actor. Rejecting the resolution is not recommended but if you do give me a way to evaluate it along with the negation's arguments I can still evaluate it.

Theory- run frivolous theory, or real theory, I don't care- you are more likely to win on real but you don't need me to say that for you to know. I evaluate by competing interps, or give me a good reason to evaluate by reasonability.

In Parli there are often facts that are made up, placed out of context or simply have nothing to do with the case at hand. I will try my best not to intervene but if a fact is called out for being wrong and I know it to be, I will probably not buy the fact. to not put yourself in this situation explain why the fact is true rather than a statement of the truth.

ex: instead of just saying that wages are rising 2.5% say that because the general Econ is doing well there is more competition which allows wages to rise 2.5%. that way the truth of the claim isn't in the 2.5% but rather the claim that the economy is doing well.

Speaker points- I start at about 28- and if your speech is in-between these markings I will score accordingly. I use the judging philosophy of my former coach Bear Saulet in that I remove the 2 from the twenty and vote like I am giving a grade. That means my 27.8 is equivalent to a C+ and a 29.4 is an A. Most speeches will end up being between 27.9 and 29.1

TDR: do K's at your own risk, kriitical arguments are cool, case is also awesome and run as much theory as you want but know that the likelihood of winning on bad theory is low.

Background

I competed in NPDA for 4 years at Concordia University Irvine. My BA is in Sociology and I hold a Master's in Public Policy from the University of California at Irvine.

TL;DR

I have not been active in debate a lot lately. I am employed the government, so I am personally inclined to believe (and, consequentially, to vote for arguments that):

• Reformism and the state are good

• Policymaking improves the world

• Sweeping structural claims about society are inaccurate/contingent

• Theoretical and procedural debates are only useful when they serve policymaking goals

Ballot

Debate is a game and participants have the creative choice in how they choose to engage in that game. I prefer topical debates that involve a discussion of policy making. I will protect against new arguments in the rebuttal, but it is the prerogative of the debaters to call points of order anyway to hold teams and critics accountable for new arguments. Use impact calculus to explain how the ballot is warranted for your side. You may not like the outcome if I have to do the weighing for you.

Theory

I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards. However, I have some arbitrary threshold for offense required to vote on a theory interpretation. I am unlikely to vote on procedural arguments about interpretation flaws or other nit-picky issues – they don’t implicate substance or norm-setting. I’ll buy reasonability brightlines that explain why the theory debate itself trades off with debating substance, why that’s bad, and why the difference between the interps does not matter.

Kritiks

Kritiks should explain why they turn the aff and have terminalized impacts. The alt should explain why they solve the aff, and what the post-alt world looks like. If I do not understand what the world looks like by voting for your alternative, I will not vote for it. I prefer critiques do not make essentializing claims, without warrants about why the aff engages in something that needs to be rejected. Links of omission are not compelling to me. You should assume that I am not familiar with your K lit base and that I may not necessarily resolve a messy debate in the way you expect.

Framework/Critical Affirmatives

Critical affirmatives should be topical or at least germane to the topic. Rejecting the resolution (or debatably worse, ignoring it entirely) is an uphill battle. I am highly sympathetic to framework. I am not convinced fairness is an impact, but it matters.

DA/CP

Disadvantages should explain why they turn the aff and have terminalized impacts.

Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the aff. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, however, I am sympathetic to counterplan theory when there is one topical affirmative. I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s). I think delay CPs are bad for debate and I'm predisposed to vote against them on principle.

Other

Speaker points are arbitrary. If you are unnecessarily mean, rude, condescending or just not a nice person in round, I’ll be decreasing points as you go. Likewise, I will reward clarity.

Otherwise, my speaker points will probably reflect my preferences above. Go for positions of good substance that encourage clash and enjoy rewards; do the opposite and expect punishment.

Note: Because it has been a little while since I've been active in debate, consider speaking below your top speed and with an emphasis on clarity, especially when I’m judging virtually. If I can't flow you it will only to hurt you.

Pronouns: He/Him/His.

* note for TOC * judge paradigms that include things like "I will drop you if you run a kritik," you just don't want black, indigenous, and students of color to access this space and it shows.

Specifics for Parli:

I am the Head Coach of Parliamentary Debate at the Nueva School.

ON THE LAY VS. FLOW/ TECH FIGHT: Both Lay (Rhetorical, APDA, BP, Lay) and Tech (Flow, NPDA, Tech) can be called persuasive for different reasons. That is, the notion that Lay is persuasive and Tech is something else or tech is inherently exclusionary because it is too narrowly focused on the minutiae of arguments is frankly non-sense, irksome, and dismissive of those who don’t like what the accuser does. I think the mudslinging is counter-productive. Those who do debate and teach it are a community. I believe we ought to start acting like it. I have voted for tech teams over lay teams and lay teams over tech teams numerous times. One might say that I do both regularly. Both teams have the responsibility to persuade me. I have assumptions which are laid out in this paradigm. I am always happy to answer specific or broad questions before the round and I am certain that I ask each team if they would like to pose such questions before EVERY round. I do not want to hear complaints about arguments being inaccessible just because they are Ks or theoretical. Likewise, I do not want to hear complaints that just because a team didn’t structure their speeches in the Inherency, Link, Internal Link, Impact format those arguments shouldn’t be allowed in the round.

Resolution Complications: Parli is tough partly because it is hard to write hundreds of resolutions per year. A very small number of people do the bulk of this for the community, myself being one of them. I am sympathetic to both the debaters and the topic writers. If the resolution is skewed, the debater has to deal with the skew in some fashion. This can mean running theory or a K. It can also mean building a very narrow affirmative and going for high probability impacts or solvency and just winning that level of the debate. There are ways to win in most cases, I don’t believe that the Aff should be guaranteed all of the specific ground they could be. Often times these complaints are demands to debate what one is already familiar with and avoid the challenge of unexplored intellectual territory. Instead, skew should be treated as a strategic thinking challenge. I say this because I don’t have the power to change the resolution for you. My solution is to be generous to K Affs, Ks, and theory arguments if there is clear skew in one direction or another.

Tech over truth. I will not intervene. Consistent logic and completed arguments these are the things which are important to me. Rhetorical questions are neither warrants nor evidence. Ethos is great and I’ll mark you on the speaker points part of the ballot for that, but the debate will be won and lost on who did the better debating.

Evidence Complications: All evidence is non-verifiable in Parli. So, I can’t be sure if someone is being dishonest. I would not waste your time complaining about another teams’ evidence. I would just indict it and win the debate elsewhere on the flow. However, there are things that I can tell you aren’t good evidence: WIKIPEDIA, for example. Marking and naming the credentials of your sources is doable and I will listen to you.

Impacts are important and solvency is important. I think aff cases, CPs, Ks should have these things for me to vote on them. If the debate has gone poorly, I highly advise debaters to complete (terminalize) an impact argument. This will be the first place I go when I start evaluating after the debate. Likewise, inherency is important. If you don’t paint me a picture of a problem(s) that need solving, should I vote for you? No, I shouldn’t. Make sure you are doing the right sorts of storytelling to win the round.

If there is time, I ALWAYS give an oral RFD which teams are ALWAYS free to record unless I say otherwise. I will do my best to also provide written feedback, but my hope is that the recorded oral will be better. I do not disclose in prelims unless the tournament makes me.

My presumption is that theory comes first unless you tell me otherwise. I’m more than happy to vote on K Framework vs. Theory first debates in both directions.

I flow POI answers.

Basically, I will vote for anything if it’s a completed argument. But, I don’t like voting on technicalities. If your opponent clearly won the holistic flow, I’m not going to vote on a blippy extension that I don’t’ understand or couldn’t summarize back to you simply.

Speaker points:

BE NICE AND PROFESSIONAL. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters WILL be punished on speaker points for being rude (beyond the normal flare of intense speeches) or abusive. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.

Theory:

I’m more than happy to evaluate anything. I prefer education voters to fairness voters. It is “reject the argument” unless you tell me otherwise. Tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. I’m not confident most know what it means. So, I’m not going to guess. Theory should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I don’t like Friv-theory in principle although I will vote on it. I would vastly prefer links that are real, interps that are real, and a nuanced discussion of scenarios which bad norms create. Just saying “neg always loses” isn’t enough. Tell me why and how that would play out.

Counter Plans:

Delay CPs and Consult CPs are evil, but I will vote for them.

The CP needs to be actually competitive. You also need a clear CP text. Actual solvency arguments will be much rewarded and comparative solvency arguments between the CP and the Plan will be richly rewarded.

DAs:

Uniqueness does actually matter. Simplicity is your friend. Signpost what is what and have legitimate links. Give me a clear internal link story. TERMINALIZE IMPACTS. This means someone has to die, be dehumanized, etc.. If the other team has terminalized impacts and you don’t, very often, you are going to lose.

Kritiques:

I was a K debater in college, but I have come around to be more of a Case, DA, Theory coach. I also have a Ph.D in History and wrote a dissertation on the History of Capitalism. What does that mean? It means, I can understand your K and I am absolutely behind the specific sort of education that Ks provide. That being said a few caveats.

Out of round discussion is a false argument and I really don’t want to vote for it. Please don’t make me.

Performances are totally fine and encouraged. But, they had better be real. Being in the round talking isn’t enough, you need warrants as to why the specific discussion we are having in the debate on XYZ topic is uniquely fruitful. Personal narratives are fine. If you are going to speak in a language other than English, please provide warrants as to why that is productive for me AND your opponents. I speak Japanese, I will not flow arguments given in that language.

I would prefer that you actually have a rough understanding of what you are reading. I don't think you should get to win because you read the right buzzwords.

Alternatives:

Alternatives need to be real. If they put offense on the Alt, you are stuck with that offense and have to answer it. Perms probably link into the K, please don’t make me vote for a bad perm.

Impacts:

I am less likely to vote against an aff on a K for something they might do. I am very likely to vote on rhetoric turns, i.e. stuff they did do. That is, if you are calling them racist and they say something racist, please point it out. Your impacts compete, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to answer their theory arguments or make your own. I would encourage you to show how your impacts compete pre- and post-fiat. Fiat isn’t illusory unless you make it so and extend it.

There is also a difference between calling the aff bad or it’s ideology bad and the debater a bad person. In general, debaters should proceed as if everyone is acting in good faith. That doesn’t mean that rhetoric links don’t function or that I won’t vote on the K if you accuse your opponent of promoting bad norms--intellectual, ideological, social, cultural, political, etc.. However, if one takes the pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the K seriously, Ks should not be used as a weapon of exclusion. No one has more of a right to debate than another. To argue otherwise is to weaponize the K. We want to exclude those norms and that knowledge which are violent and destructive to communities and individuals. We also probably want to exclude those who intentionally spread bad norms and ideology. However, I severely doubt that a 15-year-old in a high school debate round in 2022 is guaranteed to understand the full theoretical implications of a given K or their actions. As such, attacking the norms and ideology (e.g. the aff or res or debate) is a much better idea. It opens the door to educate others rather than just beating them. It creates healthy norms wherein we can become a stronger and more diverse community.

Framework:

I love clean framework debates. I hate sloppy ones. If you are running a K, you probably need to put out a framework block. I would love to have that on a separate sheet of paper.

Links:

Links of omission are vexing. There is almost always a way to generate a link to your K based on something specifically in the aff case. Please put the work in on this front.

Case:

I love case debate, a lot. Terminal defense usually isn’t enough to win you the debate. But defensive arguments are necessary to build up offensive ones in many cases. Think hard about whether what you’re running as a DA might be better served as a single case turn. Please be organized. I flow top of case and the advantages on a separate sheet.

Specifics for Public Forum:

Please give me overviews and tell me what the most important arguments are in the round.

Evidence:

Unless we are in Finals or Semis, I'm not going to read your evidence. I'm evaluating the debate, not the research that you did before the debate. If the round is really tight and everyone did a good job, I am willing to use quality of evidence as a tie-breaker. However, in general, I'm not going to do the work for you by reading the evidence after the round. It's your responsibility to narrate what's going on for me and to collapse down appropriately so that you have time to do that. If you feel like you don't have time to tell me a complete story, especially on the impact level, you are probably going for too much.

Refutation consistency:

I don't have strong opinions regarding whether you start refutation or defense in the second or third speech. However, if things are tight, I will reward consistent argumentation and denser argumentation. That means the earlier you start an argument in the debate, the higher the likelihood that I will vote on it. Brand new arguments in the 4th round of speeches are not going to get much weight.

Thresholds for voting on solvency:

PF has evidence and for good reason. But, that doesn't mean that you can just extend a few buzzwords on your case if you are going for solvency and win. You have to tell me what your key terms mean. I don't know what things like "inclusive growth" or "economic equity" or "social justice" mean in the context of your case unless you tell me. You have 4 speeches to give me these definitions. Take the time to spell this stuff out. Probably best to do this in the first speech. Remember, I'm not going to read your evidence after the round except in extreme circumstances and even then...don't count on it. So, you need to tell me what the world looks like if I vote Pro or Con both in terms of good and bad outcomes.

Theory:

I haven't come across any theory in PF yet that made any sense. I'm experienced in theory for Policy and Parli. If there are unique variations of theory for PF, take the time to explain them to me.

Kritiques:

There isn't really enough speaking time to properly develop a fleshed out K in PF. However, I would be more than happen to just vote on impact turns like Cap Bad, for example. If you want to run K arguments, I would encourage you to do things of that sort rather than a fully shelled out K.

Specifics for Circuit Policy:

Evidence: I'm not going to read your cards, it's on you to read them clearly enough for me to understand them. You need to extend specific warrants from the cards and tell me what they say. Blippy extensions of tag lines aren't enough to get access to cards.

Speed:

Go nuts. I can keep up with any speed as long as you are clear.

For all other issues see my parli paradigm, it's probably going to give you whatever you want to know.

Specifics for Lay Policy:

I do not understand the norm distinctions between what you do and circuit policy.

As such, I'm going to judge your rounds just like I would any Policy round --> Evidence matters, offense matters more than defense, rhetoric doesn't matter much. Rhetorical questions or other forms of unwarranted analysis will not be flowed. You need to extend arguments and explain them. If you have specific questions, please ask.

Experience: College NPDA (4 years) and NFA-LD (1 year)

TL;DR: I prefer case, theory, and K's that are sociological in nature, but I also value strategic decisions and seeing debaters use their relative strengths to win the round. I also significantly prefer flow-based debate.

General: I view debate as a game to be played and won. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise. In my career, I mostly debated Buddhism, set col, cap, heg, spec, and case (not much of a specialty).

Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round. I really enjoy a good heg debate. I know literally nothing about science so explain if necessary.

Theory: I am good with anything. Potential vs proven abuse should be debated out in-round. I probably have a lower threshold than most on theory. I enjoy theory that many would consider "frivolous" but I also won't actively try to hack for T. I am probably biased towards condo being good but will still vote on condo bad if you win the flow.

Kritik: Fine with not upholding the res, also down for voting on framework. I think that your kritik should also win the line-by-line, unless you make arguments otherwise (I have a very high threshold for rejecting the flow). Very familiar with cap/Marx but down for cap good. Don't know much about pomo so if that's your thing then explain thoroughly.

Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. I award speaker points based on the quality and strategic utility of arguments made rather than on persuasiveness.

A Quick Biography

Hey y'all my name is Will (he | any), I did national and local circuit LD debate in high school for 3 years, along with being my team's debate captain. Everything I know about debate was self taught or learned from my peers as our coach was not well versed in debate of any kind. Together our team managed to teach ourselves everything we needed to know about national circuit debate in order to compete. From there me and my close friend started a debate podcast dedicated to teaching small schools around the country the same information we worked to acquire.

Email

will@wtoll.com

Other References

These are the links to the paradigms of other people I've been on teams with, and other people who tend to share very similar views as I do. If you find any ambiguity in my paradigms, or have any questions about them, I tend to judge similarly to these people and so maybe something in their paradigms will put you at ease. That being said we are not the same people so do not take anything you read on their pages as a 100% given.

June Dense

Kate Marin

If you have a really serious question about my paradigms then you can email me personally before the round and I will answer them for you. I will not however give you advice on which cases you should run in front of me or what strategy I would prefer. I will simply tell you if I am or am not okay with something.

Rule of Thumb

As a general rule of thumb, the majority of my positions on judging are predicated upon the notion of debate as an intellectual challenge, and not as some puritanical sport. With that being said I don't appreciate debaters trying to win just for the sake of winning. I appreciate much more the debaters who engage in legitimately interesting intellectual discussions instead of running something abusive just to win the round. I also don't appreciate judges who have arbitrary notions about what debate "ought" to be just because that's how they grew up doing it. At the end of the day that's an appeal to tradition and a logical fallacy. If coming out of the round I feel like you made a legitimately interesting, different, or unique argument that I learned something from, then you're a lot more likely to win the round than if you tricked your opponent into oblivion.

Paradigms

For the most part I'm a pretty standard judge, no argumentation forms are off the table, but just make sure whatever you do, you do it well. Without a RoTB or RoTJ I vote based upon the flow.

Signposting

Signposting is the number one, most important thing for you to do in round. You can be making the best arguments in the world, but if I don't know what they are addressing then I have no way of evaluating them. Make sure to go down the flow in a clear manner. Tell me which arguments you're going to address before you address them.

Ks

I'd like to think I'm pretty well read in K lit, and also I can use and understand big fancy words so that shouldn't be a problem. However, from my perspective the only way you should be able to win using a K is if you actually explain it. Do not rely on my prior knowledge to win you the round, you should understand the literature you're referencing enough to fully regurgitate it and explain it to me inside of your case and in questioning periods.

My main strategy for the LD nuclear war topic, on a very local, very traditional circuit was a Foucault K. I won almost every round using that case because it had both a strong link to the topic and I understood the literature so well that I explained it to the judges like they were five. You should be able to do both of those things with every K that you run, otherwise you shouldn't be running a K.

Speed

Speed is not an issue for me, but if you are going to be doing anything that could be considered spreading (like actually spreading not what that old guy you got stuck with would consider "spreading" just because he doesn't like how fast it makes him have to think) make sure to flash or mail your cases to me ahead of time.

Tech v. Truth

For me, I guess I'd be considered a tech judge, but in my view tech and truth are both equally important and one doesn't necessarily come before the other. Take the following hypothetical. Debater A presents a T definition that goes uncontested by Debater B. From that point forward we're working within an a posteriori reference frame where the definition is considered truth. This would be something a "tech" judge would do. Now let's say that after that Debater B makes a theory or K argument surrounding the nature of the definition and whether it's fair or not. At that point Debater B has made an a priori argument critiquing the reference frame itself. If successful, it would throw away the legitimacy of the definition (and depending on the argument, likely the arguments inside of that reference frame). That would be something more typical of a "truth" judge, where arguments about whether something is true or not should be considered. I say that really I'm more of a tech judge because all of that is fairly technical and requires a distinction I feel like tech judges are only capable of, but again the way I see it both arguments are valid it just depends when they're used and in what order.

This does inevitably have the implication that the highest level of debate escalation becomes Ks, theory, and T, but that's alright in my mind as long as the links are substantive.

Philosophy

I come first and foremost from a local circuit meaning I have a solid grasp of the majority of the non-K philosophies you might potentially want to use in round. Everything from Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Util, Conseq, Maslows, Rule of Law, Governmental Legitimacy, Rawls, Distributive Justice, Retributive Justice, Veil of Ignorance, and more.

Don't you try me with that Categorical Imperative though. Let's just say it speaks volumes when the author of a philosophy disowns his own philosophy and adopts skepticism.

CPs

Counter plans are solid, but make sure you have a solvency advocate for each part of your counter plan, otherwise solvency advocate theory will be really easy to win in front of me.

Topical counter plans I personally believe are abusive, but at the end of the day it's the oppositions job to tell me that and prove that to me.

Condo is also pretty abusive, but once again it's not my job to argue that. Just know that if you run Condo and your opponent runs theory on it, it will be really difficult for you to win.

DAs

DAs are cute and fun. This is like the bread and butter of the debate world so of course I'm down with them. That being said the one place I see debaters consistently lose themselves is in impact calculus. Make sure to do sufficient weighing of impacts. I want to hear Time-frame, Scale, Magnitude, Probability, Reversibility, etc.

NIBs

I pretty much have 0 respect for NIBs, you can run them and win on them, but if your opponent does so much as call out the fact that it's a NIB and it's problematic for debate, I'll throw out the argument and won't look back.

Theory

Let's do it, I think Theory is one of the most underutilized parts of debate and I love to hear actually good theory arguments. Full shell format is not necessary, the amount of times I've heard "A is the interpretation... B is the violation... C is the standards... D is the implication..." is way too many times, and for some theory arguments that strict format makes the argument very repetitive.

Frivolous Theory

Ewww gross let's not. No really though if you're gonna run A-Z spec on your opponent and expect me to care, you're surely mistaken.

Disclosure Theory

Disclosure theory must be presented by the opposition, and I need time stamps of the actual violation. That being said if you run disclosure theory in a round where lack of disclosure did not have a significant impact (your opponent isn't spreading, flashed you their case, and is just running like a DA or something), then I'm not going to vote on it.

Falsification of Evidence

I would think this section doesn't need to exist, but just to be safe, if you falsify evidence, or cut evidence in such a way to be antithetical to what the article as a whole is arguing for, the round ends immediately and the other side gets the win. In some cases, the other side doesn't even need to present it to me because I should have your cases in which case I'm reading along just like everyone else and I will see and have evidence of the falsification.

Brownie Points

You can get extra special brownie points with me if you do any of these things:

1. Use the card Kranak '21 (It's about inter-sectionalism in publishing)

2. Talk about The United States' military dolphins

3. Foucault

4. Deleuze (and Dark Deleuze)

5. Nietzsche

Anti-Brownie Points

If you run these things (or any variations on them) the only way you're winning the round is if your opponent forfeits:

1. A-Z Spec

2. Chewbacca Defense

3. Christian Optimism

4. The Debate K

5. The Dolphin Intelligence K

6. Double Loss

7. Squirrels 1AC

8. Zombies Are Gonna Kill Us!

9. The Brony 1AC

10. *Makes a Sandwich*

11. Timecube

12. Anything to do with Ashtar

13. The Fan Death K

14. "for use at a snowy tournament" (The Snowball Fight Counterplan)

15. Illuminati Lizard People

16. Logical Phallusy

17. The Pokemon K

18. "Ron Paul"

19. The Shrek K

Basically, if I can find it in the meme folder on my computer, I don't want to hear it.

General

My pronouns are she/her. I debated in the parli circuit through high school (2016-2020). I've judged a lot informally as captain and president so dw I'm not a complete newbie. Primarily a case and theory debater.

I'm okay with speed as long as you are clear and I am able to make out & flow your main points; I'd prefer if you don't spread though. I'll call clear if I need to. Use tag-lines and signpost so I can flow better. If your opponents ask you to slow down or clear, I expect you to respect that. If you don't slow for me, I won't care but I probably won't be able to understand your arguments either.

I care about inclusivity. Debating online can be hard and I have a lot of respect for you guys. Let me know if there is anything I can do to make the debate easier for you. That being said, don't be rude to opponents or offensive, and give content warnings when applicable. Overall, just be a good person and have fun:)

Parli

I'll ask for text; we're online so just drop it in the chat.

Impact out your arguments and weigh them clearly. Flows can get messy and it will only help me vote in your favor. I'm open to basically all arguments as long as you can impact it clearly and tell me how to evaluate it.

Tabula rasa but I have common sense. If you say something completely false, I'll know it.

I'm good with theory and like a good theory debate. Again just be clear in your arguments.

Although I am familiar with Ks, my experience with them is limited. If you go for them, try to stray away from overly technical arguments. Walk me through them; be clear and explain. It's been a while since I was last in a debate round!

Off-time roadmaps, tag-lines, and signposting are all amazing. I'm good with tag-teaming, just don't overdo it.

Good luck:)

TL;DR I have some experience and am a progressive judge, so you can do whatever as long as you make sure you explain things and have warrants. The best way to get my ballot is generating lots of offense and doing good weighing / impact comparison. If you're looking at this right before a round trying to decide on your strategy, run whatever you want.

Experience:

-3 years Parli at Ashland HS (Oregon); broke at TOC my senior year

-4 years NFA LD (basically solo policy) at Lewis & Clark; 2022 National Champion

-3 years as head coach at Catlin Gabel HS

-Current law student, if that matters

-Well over 100 rounds judged; 37-5 on the winning side when judging on elim panels.

Main Judging Philosophy:

Progressive/Flow judge. I vote on the flow and will vote for you if you win. Do that however you want; just make sure you sufficiently explain your arguments so they are actual arguments rather than claims with no warrants.

Please collapse in your final speeches! It makes things so much cleaner, and if you give me a clear path to the ballot instead of trying to messily go for everything, it will only help you. Same for weighing: if you weigh your impacts things will be so much cleaner and easier for me to vote for you.

Ks are fine on the aff or neg. Framework is fine. T is fine. Theory is fine. DAs and CPs are fine. Tricks are fine. It's all fine just make the arguments you want to make.

Speed is fine. I'd like to be on the email chain or file sharing if applicable. For Parli, please slow down on tags and important texts (e.g., plan texts, topicality interps, etc.)

Misc:

Disclaimer: if you say anything blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic or generally bigoted I will give you zero speaker points and you will lose. Just be nice please.

Note that I do not always flow author names, so when extending cards, please give me the tagline or reference what the card actually says rather than just saying "extend Smith 21." I don't want to have to look for it in the doc.

Happy to answer detailed questions before the round! Just trying to keep this short.

Warrants should be clearly tied to your contentions and weighing outcomes. My final decisions are often made based on whether I buy your links connection to your weighing outcomes. I don't weigh theory arguments very heavily. I believe you should be debating, not attempting to undermine someone's arguments through technical or formatting issues in his or her case. However, I do want you to adhere to rules, specifically no new evidence introduced in second rebuttal. .

Stylistically, I don't like spreading. You can speak quickly, but if I miss something, I'm not going to try and find it later. Be polite during cross. Especially, online; if you talk at the same time, I can't hear either of you.

I always provide feedback, so don't hesitate to ask.

Overall, I want you all to have a good time and learn through the process. Therefore, insulting the other team (ad hominem arguments) are a particular turn-off for me. So if you use one, it will be at your own peril. Keep it clean and friendly and have a good time!!

I'm Sarah, I did CX for 3.5 years in high school, 2 years in college at JMU doing NDT/CEDA, and then just under 2 years of NPDA at Western Washington University ending as a semifinalist with my partner in 2020. I've been coaching middle school and high school parli for the last 4ish years.

Prefs-

Now that we're back to in-person tournaments, please feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round starts if there's anything I can clarify.

this is still a work in progress

On the K-
I'm most familiar with MLM, however I can keep up with and evaluate most everything. I know the framework tricks, if you know how to use them. I have a high threshold for links of omission. I default aff doesn't get to weigh the aff against the K, unless told otherwise. I see role of the ballot arguments as an independent framing claim to frame out offense. I default to perms as tests of competitions, and not as independent advocacies. For K affs-you don't need to have topic harms if your framework has sufficient reasons to reject the res, but from my experience running nontopical affs I find it more strategic if you do have specific justifications to reject the res (I guess that distinction is more relevant for parli).

On theory-
I default to competing interps over reasonability, unless told otherwise. I have kind of a high threshold for reasonability, especially when neg teams have racist/incorrect interpretations of how debate history has occurred in order to justify reactionary positions. If you have me judging parli-I default to drop the debater; and if you have me judging policy/LD-I default to drop the argument. I default to text of the interp. Parli specific: (if no weighing, do I default to LOC or MG theory? I'll come back and answer this). I don't default to fairness and education as voters, if you just read standards, then I don't have a way to externally weigh the work you're doing on that flow. I default theory apriori, but I have a relatively low threshold for arguments to evaluate other layers of the flow first. I default to "we meet" arguments working similarly to link arguments, the negative can still theoretically win risk of a violation, especially under competing interps. For disclosure arguments-I have a very high threshold for voting on this argument in parli, given that it's nearly non-verifiable. For other formats, I think disclosure and the wiki are good norms. In general, admittedly I have a high threshold for voting on t-framework.

General/case stuff-
Case-CPs don't get to kick out of particular planks of their CP in the block, if there are multiple. I default to no judge-kick. Given no work done in the round, uniqueness matters more than impacts. Fiat is durable.

I default to impact weighing in this order if no work is done in the round: probability, magnitude, timeframe.

If I am judging you in an event that you read evidence in the round-if there's card-clipping, it's likely to be an auto-drop. If you misconstrue evidence, I won't intervene but I'll have a low threshold for voting on it if the other team brings it up.

They/them

Quals: Been doing nat circuit coaching and competing since 2019

Theory: I don't feel strongly about things like condo, dispo, or anything as such. Stonger feelings I do have are event specific and listed at the end of the paradigm. I have a list of defaults but I can def be persuaded otherwise.

• Topicality comes before other forms of theory (like spec!)
• 1NC theory comes before 1AR/2AC theory
• Competing interps > reasonability
• Text > Spirit of the interp
• Drop the debater > Drop the argument
• Meeting the interp is terminal defense
• Theory comes before substance
• Fairness and education are voters
• No RVIs

K Debate: Sure! I was mainly a K debater when I competed. I'm pretty tired of hearing post-structuralist nonsense that amounts to inclusive oppression or do nothing. Cap debates are done wrong in many debates for a lot of the same reasons.

• Reject alts are fine but have a pretty low chance of winning my ballot short of conceding alt solvency.
• I think debates can be won on frame outs paired with a risk of solvency.
• Don't care for role of the ballot debates, however, if done right they can still win rounds if you go for it as a question of whether or not the other team textually meets the role of the ballot. Almost like theory!
• I still don't know what no perms in a methods debate means!
• Critical affs dont need links to the topic if theres substantive framing that justifies the aff.
• Links can be disads to the perm but tell me why!

Case:

• Fiat is durable
• Stock issues are not my favorite path to the ballot
• I don't judge kick counter plans unless told to
• kicking planks in a plan or counter plan is cool unless someone wins a theory violation

LD Specific: A couple of quick notes

• You should disclose. I wont auto vote on disclosure but I'll have a high threshold for responses to it
• Either flash analytics or slow down/clear because I'm not going to get the 2 page long overview at 670 WPM
• I evaluate most tricks like theory interps

Parli Specific: I've had these happen enough times back to back that if you do these things its either an auto L and/or 25 speaks

• Reading a K Aff then going for 2AC theory and impact turns to T at the same time when they have the same impact
• Reading a neg perm gets you 25 speaks. Going for it gets you an L.
• Disclosure theory because theres no speech docs or wiki in parli, how do I even verify it!
• Speed bad theory gets you 25 speaks but an auto L if you're an open circuit debater who spreads and read speed bad
• K's bad theory gets you 25 speaks.

MISC: A couple of ground rules!

• Don't read Afropess/social death claims if you're not black
• Not voting on cap good
• Not voting on heg good
• Not voting on racism good
• Terminal defense is hard to win
• Give me pen time

My name is Connor (he/him) and I have four years of high school parli debate experience. During that time I considered myself to be a "flay" debater, meaning that while I did use theory and other technical arguments I almost always structured my debates around case. As a judge, I will evaluate any arguments that you can prove are important.

Case

• I love good case debate with warranted uniqueness, a strong link chain, clearly terminalized impacts, and organized clash on the line-by-line

• Organization will boost your speaks

• I generally like when people collapse on a few impacts in their voters

• I assume probability>magnitude>time frame>reversibility if not told otherwise

• Please do impact calculus

Counterplans

• Please have a specific counterplan text. It would also be ideal if you could give a hardcopy to me and the other team if it's a particularly complex one

• Try to be mutually exclusive, run perms as a test of competition

• Run theory against CPs you think are abusive

Theory

• Love theory with a clear interp, standards, and voter issues

• I probably have a higher threshold for friv theory than most, but will still vote on it

• My default is competing interpretations, if you argue for reasonability give me a brightline

Ks

• Assume I know nothing about your lit base, Ks were never my area of expertise

• Please try not to run something super generic, tell me how the aff or the res applies to your argument

• Signpost as clearly as possible

Speed

• Ok with some speed, but probably can’t keep up with spreading

• I would encourage you to call “slow” or “clear” on the other team if needed

Misc

• I flow answers to POIs

• Call POOs if the new argument is borderline

• Answer a POI or two in your constructive speeches

• Tag teaming is fine, just make sure the speaker ultimately says everything

Feel free to approach me before the round with any questions or concerns and I'll be happy to answer.

---------------Most Recent Update: 3/30/2024 (NPDL TOC) -------------

TOC-Specific

TOC is the biggest opportunity for students to learn about different styles of debate. I expect y'all to try to learn. Refer to Luke DiMartino's section on "Ballot" for what I expect to occur when styles clash. Refer to Sierra Maciorowski's section on "Pedgogy" for my thoughts on technical accessibility. Refer to Sam Timinsky's section on "Lay vs. Flow" for my thoughts on tech v. lay in the debate community as a whole.

This is also the biggest opportunity for you all to connect with one another! For the first time in 5 years TOC will be in person so make friends with your competitors and be kind to each other! Feel free to reach out to me after the round for my thoughts more deeply on issues (or, after the tournament, if you'd like coaching (NYC is expensive :( )). I am a huge debate nerd so I love it when y'all have a good time and enjoy this beautiful activity. Have fun! :D

If you open-source your TOC prep you get automatic 30 speaks. Everyone should do it anyways....

No consistent coaching, but had intermittent mentorship from Trevor Greenan, Cody Peterson, Javin Pombra, Ming Qian, and Sam Timinsky. Philosophically similar to Esha Shah, Sierra Maciorowski, and Riley Shahar. Try not to pref both me and lay judges; splitting ballots at TOC leaves no one happy, and punting one of us will make both of us sad.... :(. I enjoy super techy intricate debates!

My pronouns are on tab now; please use them and your opponents correctly! Will drop speaks for first infraction, will drop teams after that.

Lastly, I've gotten really into Feyerabend. If you are interested in the philosophy of science (especially on topics about science/technocracy/AI/etc.), I highly recommend his work! There's an old Feyerabend K backfile I found that I can send to people who are interested!

Background

I did parliamentary debate for 4 years w/ Cupertino, but I'm pretty familiar with LD and PF. Currently coach parli and PF. Coached extemp for 2 years and policy intermittently. Debated APDA a bit but wasn't my cup of tea. I was a 1N/2A if that gives you any indication of my biases for speeches.

I mostly went for K if I could, but good on T and fast case. For Ks I usually went for Daoism or Asian Conscientization. If anyone wants a rough copy of either of the Ks feel free to message me on FB or email me (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com). Tried to get K-DAs off the ground but didn't debate enough rounds for it to stick :( Also if you're from a small school message me or email me for a copy of my Small Schools K.

TL;DR

- be cool, have fun, dont be a jerk

- weigh lots

- clever arguments make me very happy!

- no friv T, don't like tricks (although this I think has fallen out of favor since I've graduated)

- *not* a K hack despite my background. This is because I love Ks to death. If you are a *K debater* please pref me because I love a good K debate, but don't use a K just because you think you can get a cheap win. If you would like to get better at K debate, please pref me because I love teaching better Ks in parli :D

- seriously pleaaaaaaase be nice each other, it makes me sad when debaters get upset and debate should be fun!

Preferences

These are not hard and fast rules but general guidelines for you to see how much work you'll need to put in to win the argument. I have found that the farther I get from being a competitor in high school debate, the fewer real preferences I have and I could not care less about most issues. In other words, if it's not mentioned by name in the list below, I don't have a default and *will* flip a coin absent argumentation. If it was that important to your case, you should have mentioned it!

My number 1 preference is for you to try new things and have fun. My partner always said that if you're not having fun you're not doing it right, which I have always found to be true. Also don't be a jerk (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc) or you'll drop instantly.

I evaluate the round systematically.

1) Who is winning framework? How should I evaluate arguments at all?

2) Who is winning the layering/sequencing arguments? According to the debaters, what order should I evaluate the arguments? Absent that, I default to my stated defaults.

3) Who is winning offense on each layer? When I hit a layer where there's a clear winner, I vote for that team

In other words, I look at layers from top to bottom (e.g. K > T > Case, Advantage 1 > DA 2 > etc., etc.) and as soon as one layer isn't a tie I will just vote for whoever is winning that.

Some things that always make me happy

• Clever plans/CPs: this usually means very good specificity that lets the Adv/DA debate get very intricate
• Ks with very specific links and interesting solvency arguments! Choosing fun solvency advocates is good for everyone!
• Theory with unique standards and approaches (e.g. going hard for reasonability or the RVI, standards like "creative thinking" or "framers' intent", etc.). I'm probably the most lenient tech judge on the underview issues in theory.
• Consistent sign-posting throughout the round. If the 2N says something like "go to the warrant on the second internal link on the Econ DA" I'm going to be really happy that you kept that up the whole round
• Collapsing to fun stuff (e.g. on weighing: timeframe, sequencing, etc.)

Defaults

- If it's not in the final speeches I'm not voting on it.

- Default to probability > magnitude. Bonus speaker points if you collapse to timeframe

- Unwarranted arguments will have very little weight in my mind; if I don't know why something is true I don't know why I should buy the argument: source w/ warrant > sourceless warrant > warrantless source > sourceless and warrantless (this last one isn't an argument at all).

- Don't care if there's a source citation in parli

- Signpost! If I don't know where you are, I'm probably not gonna be able flow it!

T

- Real-world education impacts are the way to my heart, default to Education over Fairness

- Default to RVIs valid, but you need to read a particular brightline for the RVI to function

- Default to Reasonability (esp. Content Crowdout, though I don't think people run this anymore (if you do bonus speaker points))

- Don't use "small school" arguments unless you're actually from a small school or can justify how your program is disadvantaged. I'll give leniency on this but please don't be disingenuous -- and being on the circuit for so many years I think I've developed a good intuition.

K

- KNOW THE SOURCE MATERIAL WELL AND HOW IT ENGAGES ESPECIALLY W/ FOREIGN POLICY TOPICS: most K's (especially generics) are written with the US in mind and are *not* applicable to other places, be sure that the K functions elsewhere before you run it

- PLEASE PLEASE have good links that actually connect to the specific articulation of the Aff.

- If it's a funky K, go nuts, but please explain stuff (for the sake of me and especially for the sake of your opponents) or I won't know what you're saying

- K Affs are lit, just make sure there's actual ground for both sides (for all the Negs out there, email me if you want a copy of arguments against K Affs)

- If you read a decent K out of the 2AC you'll get a 29.5 at least.

- If you read theory saying NEG Ks are not legitimate, I will drop you

- Familiar with most Ks except for super pomo stuff. I'm not sure what the place for identity Ks are in the debate space and I have not judged them enough or been engaged with the community enough to be educated but please be cool about them if you do want to read it and make sure there's an actual valid opposite side

- From Riley Shahar's paradigm: "I tend to think that debate is not the best space for arguments which are reliant on the identities of competitors. I am certainly willing to listen to these debates, because I know from experience that they can be necessary survival strategies, but making assumptions about other people’s identities is a very dangerous political move which can force outing and be counterproductive to revolutionary action."

Tricks

Go slow and explain them super clearly (probably defeats the point of running them but hey it's your round).

Speaker Points

Do work on 30 speaks theory, don't just throw it out there for the sake of it. Speaks are entirely assigned based on strategic decisions made in-round (i.e. I don't care how you say it as long as you say it). 25 or lower for problematic speech/behavior.

APDA Specific

- default to beat-the-team on tight calls

- don't be purposefully obtuse in POCs or you're getting tanked (and I'll be more lenient on tight calls and case args)

- pragmatic > principle, but easily swayed

- run a K, run theory, run condo, go nuts, just don't call it that if it's against tournament rules

- please POO shadow extensions: if it's not extended in the MG, I consider it new (even if it's in the PMC)

Non-Parli

- I don't flow cross

- Read full cites or I'm not flowing it (in particular this is @ PF)

- Cards with warrant > cards without warrant = warrant without card > claim without warrant

- Bonus speaker points if you disclosed on the wiki

- PF: If it's in FF it needs to be in summary

- Add me to the email chain (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com)

Misc.

- Call "clear" or "slow" if you can't keep up; if you don't slow down enough when the other team calls it several times you're going to get dropped with tanked speaks. I will also call clear/slow as necessary

- If you say something blatantly untrue, I'm giving the other team the argument (the bar for this is very high though so just please don't lie).

- If you tell me to check the argument, I'll do it but I won't treat it as a "lie" unless it's egregious (in which case I can tell either way)

- Go slow on plans/CPs, interps, alts, etc. Have copies prewritten for everyone. For online tournaments, have texts in the chat right after you say them. We're online! It's so much easier to pass texts! (boomer grumblegrumble)

- For Points of Order, tell me explicitly which argument is new and why (if you're calling it) and where it was on the flow in which speech specifically (if you're responding). I will let you know whether or not I think it's new unless it's in outrounds. Trust me when I say that it is too much work (usually) to protect against new arguments.

- Virtual POIs: put them in the chat, please be mindful of the chat if you're the one speaking

- Tag-teaming: go for it, but both speakers must state the argument

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

Theory

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

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

- Provide a brightline for reasonability

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

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

- High threshold for RVIs

- Fine with friv t

Case

- I prefer case debate

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

- Please read uniqueness in the right direction

- Condo is fine, but condo bad is also fine

- Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy

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

Kritik

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

- Things I’ve run: cap, biopower, fem

- Please engage with the aff/the resolution

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

Other

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For background, I did Parli debate for three years in high school. I'm basically somewhere between a flow and lay judge, so I guess I'm a real Bobby Flay.

- I prefer rounds that are on case. If you're gonna run theory or a kritik I want it to be proven that there is an actual threat to the fairness of the round, not just that you're yoinking something off a google doc because you don't want to debate on case. To be honest, I don't really like kritiks (especially on aff).

- I prefer slower and more persuasive arguments as opposed to just spitting out points rapid fire. I like arguments that are both logical and coherently explained. I don't want to have to decode some seven-dimensional brain matrix of theoretical dissertations just to figure out what your argument is.

- I like well-organized debates. If I can't figure out what on the flow you're responding to, I'm gonna have a harder time following your argument.

- I'm a fan of humor in debate.

- If you can't tell what your opponents are saying, feel free to say "slow" or "clear".

- Debate is about clash, so try to keep the round interactive.

- Make sure to include impact calculus.

- I like creative arguments and out of the box approaches as long as you debate them well. Sometimes in debate there can be a sort of "meta game" of acceptable arguments, but I'm fine with you going for anything as long as you properly defend it. If you want to go full anarcho-primitivist social darwinist, then frio frijoles.

- If you're not sure whether to call point of order on something, just go for it, I won't dock you for if you did it in error.

- Some traits I appreciate in debaters: creativity, confidence, logic. Some traits I don't appreciate: bullying your partner, chewing on pencils, repeatedly saying "riddle me this".

- At the end of the day I'm going to favor the team that built the most logical and persuasive argument, not just the one that had one more argument on the flow that the other team didn't respond to. To me debate is about developing a strategic and convincing argument, not out-gaming your opponent in 3d chess.

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