Given that fascists are now doxing judges for their paradigms, I have removed mine from tabroom. My paradigm will not be publicly accessible until cybersecurity and digital access changes are made to protect judges and other members of the debate community. If you want to read my paradigm, feel free to email me at boalsj@gmail.com

Past Experience: I debated in North Carolina from 2012-2016. I’m currently a PhD student in robotics and AI ethics at UT Austin and previously attended MIT, and did a concentration in Latin American politics and political philosophy. I was the district champion in the Tarheel East District and went to nationals my senior year, qualified for CFLs my junior and senior year, and placed 3rd at States my senior year. I made it to out rounds at Wake Forest. I've been judging/coaching off and on since 2016. I debated in both traditional and progressive styles, and have no implicit preference between the two. Both paradigms are below:

Traditional Paradigm: I’ll evaluate any argument you make in the context you make it. That being said, don’t take advantage of my paradigm to be abusive. If you use speed to overwhelm your opponent or employ other tricky or gimmicky strategies, I will probably be annoyed (as will your opponent) – I like to see actual clash of arguments, not a race to give the most arguments. The faster you talk, the higher burden you have to make thoughtful, powerful arguments, not just a multitude of weak ones. I can understand spread fine, but given the virtual format, spreading is probably a suboptimal strategy.

I give higher weight to framework consistency over contention level/statistical disputes – if you are clearly winning the framework debate, link your framework to the resolution, and can impact off it effectively, you’ll almost certainly get the win. I don’t expect either debater to be an expert on the literature, so focus more on winning the core of the value criterion debate than specific pieces of evidence. I won’t drop you for dropping a card if you use that time to extend meaningful impacts directly linked to the resolution. Tell me what I should care about and why.

For speaker points: everyone starts out with a 28 in my book. If you do good things (clear argument structure, signposting, well organized rebuttals [I LOVE when debaters number/label their arguments for me, it makes the flow much neater], etc.) I’ll reward you. If you do bad things (e.g. poor organization in your rebuttal) I’ll dock points. I’ll clearly explain my reasoning on the ballot and am happy to give additional feedback if requested. Given the virtual format, I’ll pay more attention to argument structure than how you actually sound and in general am lenient with speaker points.

Acknowledgement: Historically, women and minorities have been docked points in debate* for coming off "too aggressive," etc. I won't do that. Be as aggressive as you want.

* http://vbriefly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Tartakovsky_Tabroom_Analysis.pdf

Quote Kanye, get a 30**. That's the rule.

**unless you're losing and the tournament doesn't allow low point wins. Regardless, I'll give you the max speaks I can.

Note: you can convincingly win cross-examination without being condescending. Make strong arguments and ask difficult questions/put your opponent on the spot, but there's a difference between aggression and condescension.

I’m excited to hear your cases, just be respectful to your opponent and let’s have some fun!

for file exchange/comments/questions/concerns/additional feedback: kyle.morgenstein@gmail.com

Progressive Stuff, if that's your thing:

TLDR: do whatever you want, but I'm a hard ass about links. Otherwise, you can probably convince me to vote on almost anything. Tech > truth, usually. Ask me to clarify if this matters to you.

In general: Reading a card is not a warrant. Reading a card AND PROVIDING ANALYSIS is a warrant. Explain to me the mechanism for how you justify your claims. Why should I prefer your study over theirs? Why should I prefer this analytic over emperics? I care more about your link tree than about whether or not you get to existential impacts.

Kritiks: I love 'em, K affs are fine, and I can generally follow the literature, just make sure you slow down for the links. I have a very high standard for links (in general, but especially with Ks) so make sure those are clear. Explicitly tell me what the roll of the ballot is. Why does voting for the K matter, and why is that more important than arguing the resolution at face value? My only pet peeve with K debaters is if your opponent clearly can't/doesn't understand the argument. If that happens just slow down a little, make it clear; you'll do better in front of me if your opponent understands why they're losing to the K than if you just spread DnG while your opponent fights back tears. Otherwise, I'll evaluate any argument you make in front of me if you can justify it/it isn't literally racist/sexist/etc.

Theory: Please don't make me evaluate theory that isn't in standard shell form. Give me the violation, link, impact, role of the ballot, etc., and I'm happy enough. I'm kind of bored of the same education and fairness arguments. If an actual violation happened and you're using theory defensively, fine, but if you're going for theory as a strategy at least make it interesting.

Topicality: yeah fine, do what you want.

LARP/Policy Stuff (Plans, CPs, Disads, Multiple Advocacies, etc.): Same as before, I'm happy to evaluate it, just make the links clear and if your opponent is struggling to keep up, slow down on the tags/flash case.

Tricks: I'd rather you didn't. But if you do, justify it. I'll let you run your spike if it's clear why you deserve it. I'm not going to give you the win because you fit in the 8 words it takes to say "aff gets RVIs cuz time skew is unfair" but debate is a game and I'll evaluate any strategy you want to try to use to win it.

Performance Stuff: Honestly I think these type of debates are super interesting and I'm happy to vote for it if your link is good (I'm a broken record about links, I know). If you have a trad opponent I expect you to take the time to explain it to them: if you're going to argue that debate space is best filled by this performance and lead to XYZ real world impacts, then making sure we're all along for the ride is key. This is maybe the only type of argument for which I expect you to persuade me is authentic.

Role of the Ballot: lol you tell me. To me it's just pressing a button but if it means something more significant than that, tell me about it.

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