Hi! My name is Aviva, pronouns are she/her. Please put me on the email chain: avfra23@icstudents.org

I'm currently a Sophomore at Iowa City West High School.

If you are a novice read whatever arguments you want I will be able to evaluate it. Please skip to the note for novices and ignore the rest of my paradigm.

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant, and impact. I will vote for any style, the following is just a preference of what I personally enjoy, I will not hack against you or hurt your speaks because of what style you debate.

If you have an uncommon/weird framework please explain it well. You can't just say "extend" to extend.

I am able to evaluate any speed. I spread and debate people who spread. If I can't understand you I'll say clear.

Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth

Prefs:

Tricks-3

Phil-1

Theory-1

Ks-2

LARP-4

FOR NOVICES: Please please please respond to each other's frameworks and extend. The framework debate determines what contentions matter, so if no one engages in the framework debate it will be very hard to evaluate the round. If no one responds to anyone's framework I will determine the round by looking at whose contention level offense has the strongest link back to one of the frameworks and if they were extended. I primarily vote off of framework and then go down to contention level. To Clarify, I recommend still making responses to your opponent's contentions and trying to turn them but please don't only respond to your opponent's contentions and not do any framework debate. If you turn your opponent's contentions and win your own contentions you will still win the debate because regardless of which framework I look at offense under you will be winning. If you win an a priori, that comes before everything else, but please still argue for why it comes first in round as well as make sure you don't only reread your a priori and sit down.

LARP

I don't LARP very much but LARP is pretty straight forward so I'll be able to evaluate a LARP round. It's low on my prefs because I think LARP is ok but you definitely won't lose speaks or anything if you LARP.

Tricks

I'm good with tricks and will almost always evaluate them. tech>truth. I will listen to anything with a warrant.

Ks

I like Ks, and I read them sometimes. I'd probably be the best at evaluating stock ks like fem, cap, security, ableism etc. I can evaluate high theory just explain it if it's super complicated. I'm ok with k tricks, please hint at a floating pik in the NC.

Theory

I will listen to all theory shells no matter how frivolous. The only exception is no ad homs. I will vote on disclosure if your opponent just didn't disclose but I don't like shells that are like may not full text in the cite box. I default to drop the debater, no RVIs, and competing interps. You must extend paradigm issues and voters for me to evaluate them, and if you just don't read paradigm issues in a shell I won't evaluate it. I won't hack for a specific paradigm issue and am more than willing to vote for dta, yes RVIs, or Reasonability. The only exception is if you go for reasonability you must have a brightline and a reason for that brightline.

Phil

Phil is probably what I like to watch the most. I think the NC AC strategy is very strategic and will give you good speaks if you execute it well. Hijacks and preclusive arguments are cool. If you think your framework is super complicated for some reason just explain it well but I'll probably be able to evaluate a phil debate. Please weigh in the framework debate because that makes it a lot easier to evaluate.

Defaults

I default to permissibility negates and presumption affirms, and truth testing, but I will not use my defaults unless there are literally zero arguments for why they flow one way. I have defaults because they're necessary to resolve some rounds, if no one wins any offense and no one has reasons presumption affirms or negates, I have to use my defaults because otherwise, the round will be irresolvable.

Speaks

29.5-30: You're just an absolute legend.

29-29.5: Good Work

28.5-29: Good job

28-28.5: Pretty good

27.5-28: You did fine

26.6-27: Eh, ok

0-25: You were mean or did something really wrong

call me m.c., or you could attempt my actual name too if you feel like it (i might give you an awkward look if you get it wrong tho)

she/her or they/them

email: mcguodebate@gmail.com. set up the email chain before round

tldr

k - 1/2

policy - 1/2

theory - 2/3

phil - 3/4

tricks - strike

– be a good person

– disclosure is good

– i don't flow the doc during a speech, clarity is *highly* recommended

– prep time includes the time to compile the file

– prep time can be cx, cx time cannot be prep

– argument quality is *important* (your arg quality and speaker points exist on a sliding scale)

– Read whatever. But I am not the best judge for very dense or niche phil vs phil or tricks vs tricks debates. That doesn't mean you shouldn't run those positions in front of me, it just means that they need extra explanation

for online debates

keep a recording of your speech in case the internet connection tweaks

misc thoughts

– I enjoy creative counter-interps (but not interps. no shoe theory ok? ok ty :D)

– If you spend more than 1'30" reading underviews I'll just stop flowing and do my homework

– I tend to evaluate the interp/counter-interp similarly to plan/counter-plan. I think this POV allows more creativity in theory debates. Conditional/delay/consult counter-interp is kinda fun to judge

– Tech > truth is weird way to put it??? Tech is SUUUUPER important, but these two are not mutually exclusive. The truth of arguments is determined by the quality of the links/internal links and evidence, which is a key aspect tech. And "[y]our arguments do not start at 100% risk—they start at whatever risk your justifications for them imply. This means the implications of your arguments in front me will not be derived from the claim, but the warrant"(Ishan Bhatt). This means

a) I don't auto assign 100% risk to your arguments. For example, I don't consider "condo bad––strat skew" to be an independent voter and I probably won't care that much about a dropped one-line a priori

b) I have a much lower threshold for responses against blippy arguments

c) I re-read the warrants in your evidence to decide in a tough round

– I don't vote on out-of-round stuff except disclosure. It forces me into an awkward position. If something problematic has happened, taking it to the tournament tabroom or your coach is much better than trusting a teenager to be your arbiter

– For Ks, I find preclusion/root cause/perfomativity arguments to be a little sketchy and circular, and that time is better spent on answering/turning case

– Quality links are part of a good neg strat (*cough* e.g., kritiks *cough*), other wise the debate is sloppy

– I'm down for non-t affs. But if you know your affirmative is non-topical, admit it. "Pseudo-topical" affirmatives don't make much sense to me and it just makes it seem like you are scared of framework lol. And be sure to defend why reading it on the aff is uniquely valuable

***I've only judged a couple of tournaments this year, so I won't be as used to some of your top speeds***

Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)

West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 || University of Iowa '22 || Iowa Law '26

I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): krkopf@gmail.com

Conflicts: Iowa City West High School, West Des Moines Valley High School

Bio: I coached Iowa City West LD for 5 years. I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year.

I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.

OVERVIEW:

I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using a policy AC to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:

Phil – 1

Theory/T – 1

K - 1

Policy - 2

Tricks - 3

Online Debate:

-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot. Also, slow down extra on underviews, theory, and author names because I'm extra bad at flowing those.

-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed.

-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally

-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round!

-I will always keep my camera on when debaters are speaking. Sometimes I turn my camera off during prep time. Feel free to ask me to turn my camera on if I forget.

SPEAKS:

Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. NOT based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.

SPEED:

Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews.

IDENTITY AND SAFETY:

Firstly, I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.

Secondly, If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so.

Ks:

This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc.

Theory/T:

I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. Since I've started coaching I've become a lot more familiar with theory strategy. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:

- No RVI

- Competing Interps

- Drop the debater on theory and T

- Text of interp

- Norms creation model

- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient

Phil:

I started reading phil in high school and I coach a lot of phil now. I'm comfortable in these debates.

Tricks:

I'll vote on just about anything with a claim warrant and impact.

Policy:

While I never debated policy arguments in high school, I've judged a lot of policy-style rounds and am much more comfortable with them now.

Postrounding:

I think post-rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to post-round me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).

Misc:

*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick

*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true

*If an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.

Michael Meng (He/Him/His)

mengmichael100@gmail.com

I'll vote on anything... but heres my list on familiarity

Pref Scale

Phil: 1-2 (depends how dense, kant / pettit, hobbes, contracts, sentiments, etc are all 1's)

K (idpol, reps, generics): 2

K (high theory): 5

Substantive Tricks: 1-2

bad tricks*: 3-4

T/Theory**: 2

LARP: 3/5 (3 for ITs + Process CPs, 5 for straight policy adv/da)

Trad - plz strike me

*even though I dislike bad tricks (eval after, no aff/neg analytics, etc), you still have to respond to it, saying "this is friv" isnt responsive, its much better to just group most of these bc lots of em have the same flex warrant

**You should probably disclose, I'll vote on disclosure but the more friv the less i take it seriously eg. disclose who won the round in rr

Presume (if NONE OF THESE ARE CONTESTED):

DTD on T and Theory

No RVI's

Epistemic Confidence

Truth Testing

Competing Interps

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

LESS IMPORTANT STUFF / SPEAKS

If you follow my TikTok and ss it and put it in the doc ill boost speaks by 0.5 my @ is local.sh(i)tposter * without the () bc tab told me to take a bad word out :c

Buy me boba = 30

Be nice to ur opponents, debate should be fun

If u drop an abhorrent impact turn I will vote on it... the threshold for response is literally just sneezing on it and if u can't respond u deserve to lose lmao, however if I do have to vote on this the winner gets W20

Other than that speaks are up to me, if you can beat me in a game of clash royale before the round (come early) you get 30, but if u lose -2 speaks of what I would've given u

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

Don't be awful to each other. A little bit of snark is funny, but less important than being nice.

Make the arguments you'll make. Don't try and tailor it to me. I vote on what happened in the round, so worry about that. I vote on what you tell me to vote on so make that clear. I won't make connections for you. I won't remember the warrant of the link evidence you used in your first speech so if you want me to, extend it.

I love a good framework debate always. Even a little work on the framework, in an otherwise unframed debate, will be a major factor in how I weigh the round.

I don't flow cross. If you want me to know, care, or remember it, put it in a speech.

I am not at all worried about speed.

Updated 11/11/2022

Email: nrantilla@gmail.com

Hello, my name is Noah Rantilla, nice to meet you! I'm a second-year college student at the University of Iowa, studying psychology and philosophy. During my high school debate career, I mainly focused on LD debate, though I greatly enjoyed Congress as well.

DEBATE:

I have the most experience with judging LD debate; PF and Policy aren't really something I know much about. To put it simply, I'm a traditional judge who prefers depth>breadth, logic>evidence, and truth>tech. Do I know about tricks, T, K, PICs, CPs, and other things? Yes. Do I want to see them in the round? No. Will I vote on them? Probably not. Are there some topics that clearly invite one of the above? Yes. Does that make it more acceptable? Yes. Does that mean I like hearing it? No.

How do I feel about speed? I prefer slow debate but I recognize debaters like to go quickly and that's fine. Spreading is a big no however, if I can't understand you I won't flow it and I am willing to drop a debater for that. I will not yell clear unless there is some technical problem or ambient noise, if you are just going too fast, that's the risk you assume. I'm 19 years old and was a VLD debater, so I would say I can handle any speed you wouldn't call spreading, but still.

What are my thoughts on evidence and logic? I value good logic and evidence > good logic with no evidence > bad logic with good evidence > bad logic with bad evidence. I am a truth over tech judge, meaning just because you said it in the round DOES NOT mean it is true, and just because your opponent did not respond to something DOES NOT make it true. I recognize the huge strategic implications of that, but just to be clear, if you say "a job's guarantee will cost us millions, plunging the economy into a recession and possibly sparking nuclear war," I will still give you full weight for that argument, especially if your opponent doesn't respond, because it is at least theoretically possible and makes sense logically. All I'm saying here is running "20 off" with 18 aprioris that don't make any sense, then claiming "I auto-win because they dropped apriori 11 and 13" will not win my ballot.

SPEECH:

I have very little experience with speech, both as a competitor and as a judge. I look for eye contact, appropriate tone of voice/emotion to what you're saying, not using a script, appropriate amounts of body language, etc. I recognize all of those come off as extremely subjective standards, but I really don't have any better way to put it. I will keep time, my clock overrules yours, but I will give hand signals if requested.

CONGRESS:

I only did a little Congress in high school, but I greatly enjoyed it. I judge Congress much like I judge speech, focusing on the performative aspect, though I am very interested in what is being said as well. Apparently it is normal to bring a notepad or computer up when speaking, and this is fine, but I still will judge people's eye contact. I enjoy "soft questions," though I find it funny when the speaker doesn't realize what's happening and gets defensive. PO will automatically get 4th place unless they or other competitors perform incredibly (good or bad).

Jayden Shin

Iowa City West 23'

I have more experience in circuit debate, but most likely I'm judging a novice local tournament.

Email: jaydenshindebate@gmail.com

pls have an email chain set up before the round starts

TL;DR

I will literally vote for any argument you run (k, t/theory, phil, larp, tricks) as long as it is warranted

Err on the side of over-explanation.

Tech > Truth

Any speed as long it is comes through for online debate. I'll say clear like twice.

Speaks will not be influenced by what you read, just what you do in the round (e.g. strategy, politeness, etc)

Theory/T: Yes, love it. Sometimes T can be dumb, but I'll vote on dumb T.

LARP: Sure. But bland. Sure

Kritiks: Superb. Explain as if I don't know even if I do

Framework (Phil): Great, I love to see a well executed phil debate

Tricks: I love tricks unless you spam random aprioris, then I hate you. Be creative, innovated, and fun.

Speed: Speed is good. Slow down on taglines. I'll say "Clear" a couple of times before I affect your speaks.

Speaks: Crack a joke (depending on the mood), creativity, strategy, etc. Don't beat down on novices.

Disclosure: I don't hate disclosure, I don't love it. I'll be tab on the shell

Rounds with Novices: Most likely I'll judge these rounds. Be inclusive if you have more experience.

Novice v Novice rounds are great, try your best and be confident. Be confident. Not arrogant.

Trad/Local: Ignore everything about progressive above, you do you, warrant stuff, run wild, make the debate fun.

My pet peeve is when debaters take debate way too serious. I.e. there's a difference between being too serious to the point it becomes uncomfortable vs being dedicated to debate. In round, it won't change your speaks or the ballot, but just know that pulling up with a sweatshirt is more appealing to me than wearing formal clothes.

Call me Jayden.

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:

"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.

There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.

Basically: debate like it's trad LD."

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

Hi my name's Nate,

I'd prefer if you just call me Nate, but "judge" is fine too.

Iowa City West '23

University of Iowa '26

My email is weimarnate@gmail.com

I did LD on the national circuit. I acquired 9 career bids to the TOC in LD, made Quarters of the TOC my junior year and Doubles my senior year. Any speed is fine.

I now do college policy debate at Iowa, I'm fine for any arguments, I will vote off of the flow.

If you are a novice read whatever arguments you want I will be able to evaluate them. Please make sure to extend arguments, and respond to important things.

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant and impact. I will vote for any style, the following is just a preference of what I'm most familiar with, I will not hack against you or hurt your speaks because of what style you debate. (The only args I won't evaluate/I will drop you for reading is saying something like racism good)

I enjoy creative and strategic positions. Speaks are based on strategy/technical skill.

I will evaluate arguments such as death good.

Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth

Prefs:

Tricks-1

Phil-1

Theory-1

Ks-2

LARP-3

LARP

I don't LARP very much but LARP is pretty straight forward so I'll be able to evaluate a LARP round. If you're going to have a dense larp debate there's probably better judges for you to pref, but just because I'm your judge doesn't mean you can't larp.

Tricks

Tricks can be good and bad. 100% tech>truth. I will listen to anything with a warrant. If you read a variation of condo logic please understand conditional logic. I will give you good speaks if you read a new paradox that I've never heard of and you clearly know what it says (or if you invent a paradox/trick). I will also give you good speaks if you execute theory tricks creatively. If you actively bamboozle (this does not mean overwhelm with blips) someone you will get high speaks. There is a difference between making tricky arguments in the sense of you fooling your opponent and just spamming arguments like "no neg analytics" in the underview. I'll vote for both, but the former will receive higher speaks.

Ks

I read a lot of ks. I like k tricks, please hint at a floating pik in the NC. Some literature I am fairly familiar with is Deleuze, Nietzsche, Camus, Lacan, Baudrillard and Berardi. If I didn't list something you can still read it this is just some authors I am more familiar with compared to others.

Theory

I will listen to all theory shells no matter how frivolous. I default to drop the argument on shells read on specific arguments and drop the debater on shells read on entire positions, no RVIs, and competing interps. To clarify, these are only my defaults if literally zero arguments are made, e.g. you read a whole shell but don't read paradigm issues. Please read paradigm issues, because if you don't I'll tank your speaks. If you read paradigm issues, and your opponent agrees to them or explicitly reads them again in one of their shells I will use those. So, if the AC and NC read shells with, dtd, no rvis, and competing interps, then the 2NR can't stand up and go for yes RVIs.

Phil

Phil is probably what I like to watch the most. I think the NC AC strategy is very strategic and will give you good speaks if you execute it well. Hijacks and preclusive arguments are cool. If you think your framework is super complicated for some reason just explain it well but I'll probably be able to evaluate a phil debate. Please weigh in the framework debate because that makes it a lot easier to evaluate. I default epistemic confidence.

Defaults

Truth Testing

Presumption and permissibility negate.

See theory section for theory defaults.

Metatheory>Theory=T>K

I default to strength of link weighing between different theory shells on the same layer, but would highly prefer you make weighing arguments between shells. I.e. 1ar theory before NC theory or vice versa.

Note on hitting a trad debater/novice:

Do whatever you want, I'm not going to tank your speaks for like, spreading, reading theory or something. I also won't hurt your speaks if you just have a phil or larp debate with them, any approach is fine. The only thing is don't try to embarrass or make fun of them. You deserve to win if you did the better debating but you don't need to insult them or something like that.

Note on Post Rounding: Please do it if you think I intervened. I can take it, feel free to let me hear it if you think I've wronged you. You deserve to get angry at me if I robbed you of a win (which is not my goal just to clarify). And, if you throw in a good roast we can have a good laugh.

You need to extend things in every speech even if your opponent didn't contest them in later speeches. E.g. your 2ar can't be 3 minutes answering T and not extend any substantive offense.

Speaks

Things that will hurt your speaks:

1. Reading no framework in the AC.

2. Doing no line by line (unless just blitzing overview arguments was strategic in the situation, which is conceptually possible).

3. Ending cross ex like a minute early.

4. Being rude or way overconfident.

5. You're clearly just reading off a doc that someone else wrote.

6. Making the round really messy (especially when there was a clean way to win).

Things that will boost your speaks:

1. Clearly knowing the arguments you're reading. E.g. being able to explain your framework really well in cross.

2. Weighing and just making the round generally easier to evaluate.

3. Doing what you want to do and just executing it well.

4. Being funny.

29.5-30: You will break and make it deep out-rounds. OR you did something really creative or interesting, like made the 2AR impossible because your 2NR was so good.

29-29.5: You'll probably break and could win a few out-rounds.

28.8-29: You'll probably break.

28.5-28.7: You'll probably be on the bubble.

28-28.5:You'll probably go 3-3 or maybe break.

27.5-28: You did a little worse than average.

Hi I'm Jalyn (she/her/hers), I go to UCLA and debated for WDM Valley in LD for ~7 years. I now coach LD at Millburn HS.

pre-PF TOC: i have very few paradigmatic preferences in PF, other than evidence must be carded, have proper citations (MLA is fine), and accessible to your opponent/judge should they ask for it.you should expect that i'll judge PF like I'm an LD judge.

____________

I honestly think that my paradigmatic preferences have gotten less and less ideological. I'll vote for anything that constitutes an argument. yes you can read policy stuff, tricks, and kritiks in front of me. i like phil but i'd rather judge anything else over bad recycled kant. I've left my old paradigm (written as a FYO) below as reference, cuz i still have the same takes, but to a lesser extent.

i give high speaks when you make me enjoy the round and drop speaks by like 0.3 every 30 seconds of a bad (read: unstrategic and not thought through) 2nr/2ar.

If there's an email chain, put me on it: wjalynu@gmail.com. In constructives, I don't flow off the doc.

TLDR - LD

Please note first and foremost that I am not that great with postrounding. To clarify, please ask questions about my decision after the round--I want to incentivize good educational practices and defend my decision. However, I really do not respond well to aggression mentally, so please don't yell at me/please treat me and everyone else in the round with basic respect and we should be good!

quick prefs (but please read the rest of the TLDR at least)

1- phil

2- theory, id pol k/performance, stock k

3- pomo k, LARP

4- tricks

for traditional/novice/jv debate: I'm good with anything!

i honestly do not care what you read as long as the arguments are well justified. less well justified arguments have a lower threshold for response.

I am fine with speed. At online tournaments, please have local recordings of your speeches ready in case there's audio issues/someone disconnects. Depending on tournament rules, I probably can't let you regive your speech if it cuts out, so be prepared. I will say clear/slow.

I rate my flowing ability a 6/10 in that messy and monotonous debates are difficult for me to flow but as long as you're clear in signposting, numbering, and collapsing, we shouldn't have any problems.

I view evaluating rounds as evaluating the highest framing layer of the round as established by the debaters, then evaluating the application of offense to it. In messy debates, i write two RFDs (one for each side) and take the path of least intervention.

i assign speaks based on strategic vision and in round presence (were you an enjoyable person to watch debate?). However, if you make arguments that are blatantly problematic, L20.

Many judges say they don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc, but know that I take the responsibility of creating a safe debate space seriously. If something within a round makes you feel unsafe, whether it be my behavior, your opponent's behavior, or the behavior of anyone else present in that round, email me or otherwise contact me. I'll do my best to work with you to address these problems together.

LONG VERSION - LD

Ev ethics

- If a debater stops the round and says "I will stake the round on this evidence ethics challenge" I will follow tournament/NSDA rules and evaluate accordingly (generally resulting in an auto win/loss situation). However, I usually prefer ev ethics challenges are debated out like a theory debate, and I will evaluate it like I evaluate any other shell.

- I really am not a fan of debates over marginal evidence ethics violations. like i really do not care if a single period is missing from a citation.

Disclosure

- I don't hold strong opinions on disclosure norms. Disclosure to some extent is probably good, but I don't really care whether it's open sourced with green highlighting or full text with citations after the card.

- reasonability probably makes sense on a lot of interps

- I strongly dislike being sketchy about disclosure on both sides. Reading disclosure against a less experienced debater without a wiki seems suss. Misdisclosing and lying about the aff is also suss.

- disclosure functions at the same layer as other shells until proven otherwise

Theory

- I strongly dislike defaulting. If no paradigm issues or voters are read by either debater in a theory debate, this means I will literally not vote on theory. I don't think this is an unfair threshold to meet, because for any argument to be considered valid, there needs to be a claim, warrant, and impact.

- You can read frivolous stuff in front of me and I will evaluate it as I would any other shell, but more frivolous shells have a lower threshold for response. For more elaboration, see my musings on the tech/truth distinction below.

- Paragraph theory is fine, just make sure that it's clearly labeled (i flow these on separate sheets)

- Combo shells need to have unique abuse stories to the interp. generally speaking, the more planks in a combo shell, the less persuasive the abuse story, and the more persuasive the counterinterp/ i meet.

- "converse of the interp" has never made much sense to me/seems like a cop out, if you say "converse of the interp" please clarify the specific stance that you're taking because otherwise it's difficult to hold you to the text of the CI

- overemphasize the text of the interp and names of standards so i don't miss anything

- you can make implicit weighing claims in the shell, but extend explicit weighing PLEASE

T

- RVIs make less sense on T than they do on other shells, so an uphill battle

- T and theory generally function on the same layer for me but I can be persuaded otherwise

- Good/unique TVAs are underutilized, so make them. best type of terminal defense on T IMO

- altho I read a ton of K affs my jr year, I fall in the middle of the K aff/TFW divide.

- if you're going to collapse on T, please actually collapse. don't reread the shell back at me for 2 minutes.

- see above for my takes on defaults

K

- I am more familiar with asian american, fem, and cap (dean, marx, berardi), but have a decent understanding of wilderson, wynter, tuck and yang, deleuze, anthro, mollow, edelman, i'm sure theres more im forgetting, but chances are I've heard of the author you're reading. I don't vote on arguments I couldn't explain back at the end of the round. if the 1ar/2nr doesn't start off with a coherent explanation of the theory of power, I can't promise you'll like my decision.

- buzzwords in excess are filler words. they're fine, but if you can't explain your theory of power without them, I'm a lot less convinced you actually know what the K says.

- some combination of topical and generic links is probably the best

- i find material examples of the alt/method more persuasive than buzzwordy mindsets. give instances of how your theory of power explains subjectivity/violence/etc in the real world.

- floating piks need to be at least hinted at in the 1n

- idc if the k aff is topical. if it isn't, i need a good reason why it's not/a reason why your advocacy is good.

- you should understand how your lit reads in the following broad categories: theory of the subject, theory of knowledge, theory of violence, ideal/nonideal theory, whether consequences matter, and be able to interact these ideas with your opponent

Phil

- the type of debate I grew up on. NC/AC debates are criminally underrated, call me old school

- I'm probably familiar with every common phil author on the circuit, but don't assume that makes me more amenable to voting on it. if anything i have a higher threshold for well explained phil

- i default epistemic confidence and truth testing (but again. hate defaulting. don't make me do it.)

- that being said, I think that winning framework is not solely sufficient to win you the round. You need to win some offense under that framework.

- i like smart arguments like hijacks, fallacies, metaethical args, permissibility/skep, etc.

- sometimes fw arguments devolve into "my fw is a prereq because life" and "my fw is a prereq because liberty" and those debates are really boring. please avoid circular and underwarranted debates and err on the side of implicating these arguments out further/doing weighing

Policy

- Rarely did LARP in LD, but I did do policy for like a year (in 8th/9th grade, and I was really bad, so take this with a grain of salt)

- All CPs are valid, but I think process/agent ones are probably more suss

- yes you need to win a util framework to get access to your impacts

- always make perms on CPs and please isolate net benefits

- ev>analytic

- please weigh strength of link/internal links

- TLDR I'm comfortable evaluating a LARP debate/I actually enjoy judging them, just please err on overexplaining more technical terms (like I didn't know what functional/textual competition was until halfway through my senior year)

Tricks

- well explained logical syllogisms (condo logic, trivialism, indexicals, etc) (emphasis on WELL EXPLAINED AND WARRANTED) > blippy hidden aprioris and irrelevant paradoxes

- i dont like sketchiness about tricks. if you have them, delineate them clearly, and be straightforward about it in CX/when asked.

- Most tricks require winning truth testing to win. Don't assume that because i default TT, that i'll auto vote for you on the resolved apriori--I'm not doing that level of work for you.

- warrants need to be coherently explained in the speech that the trick is read. If I don't understand an argument/its implication in the 1ac, then I view the argument (if extended) as new in the 1ar and require a strong development of its claim/warrant/impact

TLDR - CX

I have a basic understanding of policy, as I dabbled in it in high school. Err on the side of overexplanation of more technical terms, and don't assume I know the topic lit (bc I don't!)

Misc. thoughts (that probably won't directly affect how I evaluate a specific round, but just explains how I view debate as a whole)

- tech/truth distinction is arbitrary. I vote on the flow, but truer arguments have a lower threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is round) and less true arguments have a higher threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is flat)

- I think ROB/standard function on the same layer (and I also don't think theres a distinction between ROB and ROJ), and therefore, also think that the distinctions between K and phil NCs only differ in the alternative section and the type of philosophy that generally is associated with both

- I highly highly value adapting to less experienced debaters, and will boost your speaks generously if you do. This includes speaking clearly, reading positions and explaining them well, attempting to be educational, and being generally kind in the round. To clarify, I don't think that you have to completely change your strategy against a novice or lay debater, but just that if you were planning on reading 4 shells, read 2 and explain them well. It's infinitely more impressive to me to watch a debater be flex and still win the round than to make the round exclusionary for others.

- docbots are boring to me. I just don't like flowing monotonous spreading for 6 minutes of a 2n on Nebel, and it's not educational for anyone in the round to hear the same 2n every other round. lower speaks for docbots.

- I will not evaluate arguments that ask me to vote for/against someone because they are of a certain identity group or because of their out of round performances. I feel that oversteps the authority of a judge to make decisions ad hominem about students in the activity

- pet peeve when people group permissibility/presumption warrants together. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.

- i'm getting tired of ppl asking "what did you read" "what didn't you read" during cx/prep but ESPECIALLY after the speech before prep. like please just flow. it's kinda silly to just ask "what were your arguments on ___" for 2 min of prep cuz like just tell me you weren't flowing then!

- this list will keep expanding as I continue to muse on my debate takes