Yo whats good

I'm currently a freshman studying CS at UT Austin. I debated in PF for 3 years in high school.

For questions/ev: sumearthb@gmail.com

Tech > truth except in obvious scenarios. What's conceded is true for the purpose of the round.

I'm probably not gonna be completely familiar with all topic-related jargon, so try and explain to some slight extent (e.g. evergreening patents for pharma).

For online debate:

• I’d prefer cameras on during the round.

• When sharing evidence, stay unmuted unless you say you’re actually taking prep. This minimizes chances of people stealing prep. If you get caught stealing prep by me or the opponents, speaks will be kinda bad. :(

General debate things:

• Debate how you think is best for the round. I’ll try my best to adapt.

• Debate should be safe and educational for everyone in the round. If anyone makes the space unsafe for the others in the round, I’ll end the round.

Public Forum:

General preferences:

• My vote will go to the team with the least mitigated link chain and impact at the end of the round.

• When doing extensions, please extend the argument, its warrant, and an impact. The round and my RFD will look funny if you don't extend links or impacts. Extensions should be done completely in order for me to actually evaluate the arguments. Even if you're "winning" the argument on the flow, if it's not extended properly (i.e. a warrant, impact, etc. is dropped in summary or FF), I'm going to be somewhat hesitant to vote on it. Whatever you go for in FF should've been in summary. Collapsing on an argument is a lot better than going for everything btw. Quality of extensions >>> # of extensions

• Weigh your voting issues against other arguments. The comparison makes my decision a lot easier. The earlier weighing starts in the round, the better. Otherwise, I’ll have to use my own impact calculus in voting.

• Evidence comparison is pretty cool. However, don't just tell me that your ev postdates or something and leave it at that: tell me why I should prefer the analysis of that ev over your opponents' supposed older ev and why their analysis is discredited by being older or whatnot.

• Tangible/terminalized impacts are good. Reading a stat like “a 0.1% increase in South China Sea tensions leads to a 10% increase in the chance of war” doesn’t really tell me much about the impact on people, nations, or whatever you impact out to.

• I default to cost-benefit analysis unless there's another explicitly stated FW.

Rebuttal:

• Second rebuttal has to frontline defense on arguments that are being collapsed on. If defense is frontlined by 2nd rebuttal, you must extend it in 1st summary. Defense isn't sticky if 2nd rebuttal frontlined. If you’re conceding defense to get out of turns, it should be done in 2nd rebuttal/1st summary. Otherwise, it’s going to be really hard to recover.

• Turns must also be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. Turns, if you're going for them, must be extended in summary and actually implicated for me to think that it's offense.

• If rebuttal is just a constant card dump with no real interaction with warrants and explanations of what I’m listening to, speaks will drop.

• Any offense dropped is conceded.

• If an argument is non-responsive or unwarranted (which to me is terminal defense), please explain as to why.

• If weighing starts in 1st rebuttal, it should be responded to by 2nd rebuttal.

Summary/FF:

• Any argument that FF is going for should’ve been in summary.

• I prefer line-by-line summaries over big picture summaries.

• Extend and weigh any argument you plan on having me vote for. If multiple weighing mechanisms are being used by both teams, explain to me why your mechanism should be preferred and makes your impact more important in the context of the round (i.e. meta-weighing).

• If an argument was conceded, just say it was conceded, extend it, and then move on.

Novices:

• Don’t go for too much. Find the arguments you think are most important/explained best with the least number of responses against it and go for it.

• Seeing impact calc and other forms of comparison are ways to secure my ballot. In a lot of novice rounds, debaters just leave the arguments out there in the air and don’t clash/compare.

• Feel free to ask me any questions that pass through your mind. I want to make sure you get as much out of the round as possible as the more you learn in your novice year, the better off you’ll be in the following years.

Progressive argumentation:

Theory:

• In VPF, I’m fine with any shell being read. However, as the argument becomes more frivolous, the higher the threshold is for me to vote on it and the lower the threshold for the responses that can be read against it.

• Theory that’s specific to case/ev practices (e.g. disclosure, paraphrasing, clipping, etc.) is good. There are a lot of issues with evidence practices in debate, PF especially. However, this doesn’t make me predisposed to any interps. If the team reading theory doesn’t debate it well, I’m probably just going to forget about it, unless the other team reads RVIs.

• I’m fine with theory that’s not content-related but rather behavioral (e.g. warnings, misgendering, etc.) being read as long as there’s clear abuse in the round.

• Extend all parts of the shell: interp, violation, standards, and voters. Interact with the opponents’ counter-interp and weigh.

• When responding to theory, explain why your counter-interp is good for debate.

• I default to theory before case, no RVIs, and reasonability.

• Keep in mind that I’m not very experienced in theory debate. I’ll do my best to understand the violation and the argumentation, and I’ll pull some decision out of whatever I hear.

Other forms:

• I’m not familiar with K, T, and whatever other forms of progressive arguments there are. Because of that, it’s probably well-advised to not read those in front of me.

• If it’s imperative that it’s read, I’m all for it. I’ll try my best to understand what’s happening.

Evidence:

• All ev read in round needs to be cut. Make sure you have the link as well in case someone requests the actual article.

• If you paraphrase ev, make sure you have the cut card ready.

• If it takes longer than 2 minutes to exchange evidence each time it’s called for in round, I’ll be sad.

• Bring up evidence issues in-round. Teams should have the opportunity to justify why something is abusive or why it should warrant a loss.

• I’ll call for evidence once the round is over if a) someone tells me to, b) I think it’s really sus, c) there's conflicting ev and no one did ev comparison, or d) I’m interested >:) I'm probably not going to drop you for weird, manipulated evidence, but (if it looks manipulated) expect very poor speaks.

Speaker points:

• To get speaks > 29, make sure to pay attention to what I wrote above.

• If you plan on spreading but I have to clear you multiple times, speaks will probably be low.

• If you disclose on the wiki, +0.2 speaks.

After round:

• I’ll disclose as long as the tournament allows it. If they don’t or rounds are running really late, just send me an email, and I’ll disclose that way.

I can flow speed, but if I can’t understand you- I won’t flow it.

QUALITY of the blocks OVER the QUANTITY of blocks you can get out.

I don’t care if you’re mean- as long as you’re not personally mean. Attack arguments, not the person themselves.

DO NOT STEAL PREP!!! Or I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team.

DO NOT ASK FOR CARDS if you aren’t going to use them in your next speech!!! It’s SO annoying and wastes my time. I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team. BUT, with that being said: ask for cards if you think your opponent is lying. If you don’t have the card, I will dock points. Know your case, and don’t waste my time.

Run whatever you want.

I’m not familiar with policy strategies, but if you explained it well enough maybe I could vote off it. If you’d like a chance of winning, maybe don’t though.

I would consider myself a tech judge, so speaking pretty doesn’t matter to me. You may be the better speaker, but that doesn’t mean you’re the better debater. I vote off arguments.

Make sure your arguments are cleanly extended.

I love heated crossfires, so make it spicy!!

I DO NOT FLOW arguments in the crossfire. I take that time to write feedback in tabroom or look at my flow. BUT I do try and listen!! If I think you made a good point, I hope you bring it up in your next speech so I can flow it in the round. I think the point of crossfire is to catch your opponent lacking, so ask good questions and be on point.

Tell me what to vote on in your summary and follow that same story into final focus. If you don’t tell me what to vote on, I’ll vote on what I think is most important.

The round goes however you want it to go. I’m chill with anything & I’ll try my best to adapt to whatever you guys want me to adapt to.

Speaker points should always be good unless you do something to tank them!

Don’t stress too much and do your best!

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

If you have any questions after the round, my email is vikesgirl146@gmail.com

I am a lay judge so please speak slowly and clearly.

I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.

My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.

Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.

It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.

It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.