Julia Soczynski - Juliasoc@gmail.com

George Mason '22

Wayzata '18

I now work for Ford Motor Company

Update: If I look cranky, I'm not (maybe).

A little bit about me. I debated for George Mason University, formerly Wayzata High School, I was a 2N. Come Sophomore at college they brought me to the dark side of being a 2A. I think that debate is a game, that said, the way you play is up to you. As a sports fan, I may disagree with some things but does not mean I do not see the value and understand why you play the game of debate the way you do.

As my friend Ezra Serrins puts it, "I appreciate it when debaters take arguments seriously, but you shouldn't take yourself too seriously, it'll just piss me off." The only thing I have to add to that is a good person and have fun.

PF

I've been judging a lot of it lately. Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective warrant-level evidence comparison. My 4 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, (2) saying "de-link,", and (3) using "frontline" as a verb. (4) stealing prep - you will get 15 speaker points. <-- a note on this, I have done this 0 times. It needs to be pretty bad for me to call you on this. I am not evil

Ask me questions, I wrote this quick.

Framework

I probably am 60/40 on voting on framework. The farther the aff is from the rez, the odds of me voting on FW significantly increase. I was raised with the Ogbuli ideal of framework "Fairness is an internal link more than it is an impact, but with sufficient work it can be an impact, this is work missing from the vast majority of framework debates. It's probably not the best impact against teams making identity-based arguments, against all other teams it should make an appearance. Substantive framework impacts such as cede the political, agonism, deliberation, etc are generally more persuasive especially against identity based arguments." The idea of debate being fair. Eh.

Topicality

Both teams (especially aff teams): articulate your vision of the topic/debate and why it's better than the other team's. If I don't know what that is, it's not an insta-kill for the other team, but it will definitely hurt you. Please have an impact, please do framing, thank you in advance. Aff teams: I like it when the aff relates to the resolution in some way. That doesn’t mean you have to have a plan, but the further you go from the rez, the likelier I’ll be to Vote neg on T. I really like when the aff has offense outside of "procedurals are violent". Internal link turn stuff, that's fun. Neg teams: yes, I'm in the camp that thinks there is a difference between T and FW. Just because I think this doesn't mean you get to blow off their offense with "we're T not FW" and leave it at that (explain stuff please). I like it when there's a TVA, especially on this topic.

Nontraditional/K affs

Both teams (especially aff teams): articulate your vision of the topic/debate and why it's better than the other team's. If I don't know what that is, it's not an insta-kill for the other team, but it will definitely hurt you. Please have an impact, please do framing, thank you in advance.

Aff teams: I like it when the aff relates to the resolution in some way. That doesn’t mean you have to have a plan, but the further you go from the rez, the likelier I’ll be to vote neg on T. I really like when the aff has offense outside of "procedurals are violent". Internal link turn stuff, that's fun.

Neg teams: yes, I'm in the camp that thinks there is a difference between T and FW. Just because I think this doesn't mean you get to blow off their offense with "we're T not FW" and leave it at that (explain stuff please). I like it when there's a TVA, especially on this topic.

Kritiks

I understand at least the basic theory behind most Ks, and increased the number I run tremendously between junior year of hs and the end of my debate career. However, please don’t blow off explanation and contextualization. Too many aff teams let negs get away with read generic links or links that are about the status quo - call them on that. Impact comparison is severely underutilized in K debates. Alts are usually the weakest part of these debates, so the neg should devote time (before the 2NR, come on now) to explaining how the alt functions/solves. Floating PIKs are probably not a reason to reject the team, but reading one will make me a lot more sympathetic to the perm. Links of omission are not real links. PS. If you call someone out of there link of omission and say "oh yes, the link of omission." I will bump your speaks up.

Counterplans

Love them!

I will only kick the CP if asked. 2As tell me why they shouldn’t get to I will listen!

Disads

I Love DAs. The unfortunate a lot of people read with hyper-generic links that require a ton of spin to win. With that in mind, case specific disads (or even just hyper-specific link cards) are awesome. Politics is great. Politics and a CP were 80% of my 2NRs. I love really unique, well-explained turns-case stories.

Theory

I have no predisposition to sides when theory is run as a as a reason to reject the argument, but I most likely won’t vote on theory as a reason to reject the team unless it’s condo. On the condo question, I really don’t care. You can win that one condo is bad/good or 5 condo is bad/good. More reasonably, 5 condo may be is pushing it. (I have been informed this is a hot take). Please slow down and do line by line on theory, as it makes it easier for me to judge.

Yeah, that's it. Have fun!

TL;DR Chart

Feelings |------------------------------------------X| Dead inside

Policy |-----------X-------------------------------| K

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

Read no cards |-----------X---------------------| Read all the cards

Conditionality good |----------X-------------------| Conditionality bad

States CP good |----------X--------------------------| States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing |---------X-------------------| Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL |---------------X----------------| Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most |---------------------------X--------| Link matters most

Fairness is a thing |-------------X--------------------------| Delgado 92

Try or die |X-----------------------------------------| What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard |-----------------------------X---------| Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity |X--------------------------------------------| Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits |-------------------------X--------------------------| Aff ground

Presumption |---------------------X-----------| Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face |----------------X--------------| Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev |------------X--------------------------| More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting" |--------------------------------------X-| I only read what you read

Reverse voters are a thing |--------------------------------------X| Spare me

Fiat solves |-------X---------------------------------| LOL someone messes w/ your aff

CX about impacts |-------------------------X--------| CX about links and solvency

Who is this Zizek guy |-----X-------------------------| The Phenomenology is my bedside novel

Expressive|--------X----------------------------| Stoic

Top level

Experience: HS - backwoods regional debate, mostly LD a little PF. College - Policy, 2 years at GMU

I do the flowing thing. I go off the flowing thing.

No disclosure is also dumb. Email me after if you want comments.

My pen is down when my timer goes off.

No I don't want to shake your hand. Sorry.

There is not a world in which underviews are good nor will you convince me there is a world in which underviews are good.

Debate is a game and it should be fun. I'll vote on anything that's not an -ism. Below are just my predispositions that are subject to change.

A lot of people like to outsource violence (oppression, etc.) to other countries when there are a lot to pull from and use in the U.S. Be creative. Many people's struggle and oppression did not end with the Revolutionary War and Civil War despite what the history books try to tell you. Debate is also educational, so educate everyone in the room.

Pandemic Rule

If you show me your fluffy animal, preferably in a sentient format, I will increase speaker point by 0.1 or whatever the equivalent step is for your tournament.

The Gamble

The following will result in a 0-0.5 increase or decrease in speaks

1) Quoting from the band The Wanted.

2) Referring to President Dude in an invalidating manner throughout the ENTIRE debate

Lincoln-Douglas:

Thoughts on progressive: Look to policy. Inserting RVIs and conflating T/Theory will make for a pissy Beth. Don't ask people to delete files you flashed them. That's too extra.

Value/Value Criterion: Need to link to contentions. Obvi. Just the lens on how I should evaluate the round. Conceding this won't lose you the round.

Definitions/Observations: If you're going to talk about it, be self-serving about it.

Contentions: This is where most of the debate is. Everyone seems to be saying the same arguments. Be creative with your argumentation here.

Cross-ex: Make an effort to not look at each other. Please. I don't flow this. CX is binding.

Road maps/Line by Line: Stolen from Sean Colligan. "Debate is a journey and a journey is helped by signpost and roadmaps. Could you imagine trying to find this building without any signpost or roadmaps, it would be chaos."

Policy:

If email chain: beth.f.zhao@gmail.com

I don't run prep for email/flashing. Don't abuse it. If it takes too long I'll start the timer at my discretion but I'll do you the courtesy of letting you know.

Topic research? What's that? 2A's for life.

T: Default to reasonability. If you didn't get to read a stupid process CP it's nbd but if you lost a core of the topic DA then the aff probably isn't T. If you're running spec args set it up in CX otherwise CX checks. Slow down and show me where the clash is.

Theory: Sans condo, reject the arg not the team. But a dropped theory arg is a dropped theory arg. Can't say I'm the best judge on theory. It would be really helpful if you would slow down and do line by line rather than read block your coach wrote five years ago. You get two conditional worlds and the status quo until the 2NR, otherwise I'm pretty convinced by condo bad.

FW: I understand more now as a judge than I ever did as a debater. I was mostly in policy v. policy debates. Take this as you will

CP: Process/Delay,etc. CP's are stupid. Any other CP is a great way to solve the aff. Planks probably shouldn't be conditional. Solvency deficits and perms are ways to my heart. Judge kicking seems cheating but if the 2A doesn't say anything about it then the 2A isn't very good at their job.

DA: While DAs are important, I think it's getting harder and harder to win with just a DA. Links and impact calc are the most important here. I won't not vote on UQ overwhelms

Case: Case almost always gets try or die so if your favorite 2NR is DA and case you should put some link turns on case otherwise it's an uphill battle for you. A lot of 2NRs seem to forget that case is a thing. Most K's don't work without some defense on case.

K: The extent of my k lit are the cards I read in round. From a truth perspective, the K probably links to the aff and the impacts are probably true, but the alt just seems to be some sort of circle jerk. I'd like to think that my ballot does something and I'm not sure if thinking away the patriarchy actually does anything.

K/Performance AFFs: Do your thing and I will try my best to follow. I lean policy. If you can't adequately explain your AFF by the end of the round its your fault. New debaters just don't know debate well enough to say why debate is bad. Young debaters for the most part do not have a solid grasp to debate these affs well.

CX: I don't flow it unless I catch something important. CX is binding. If knowing that I don't flow CX is a reason that you start making things up that will make for a very angry Beth and will reflect in your speaker points.

Random thoughts I didn't know where to put but might be important: Impact turns are da bomb and I love to watch them. The more outlandish the better. Dedev is love. Dedev is life. If you concede 1AC advs and go for a straight turn DA that is not severance.

Public Forum

I evaluate the round similarly to my policy paradigm, happy to answer any questions before round. Below are things I would like to (not) see happen in the round

Strategy. Going for arguments/impacts/scenarios that your opponent dropped and contextualizing it to the round is the best thing you can do. Too often debaters don’t notice dropped/under covered arguments and it’s super frustrating for me bc I already see my ballot written. If you go for harder arguments you’ve made your job harder and mine so now I’m less happy.

Analysis. I guess it’s called weighing but please do this! Depth > breadth. The more you can contextualize your debate for me, the easier it is to write my ballot.

Time keeping. There should be a timer running at all times, whether it’s prep, cross, or speech. This also means you need to time literally everything not only to keep everyone responsible but also to make sure round/tournament run on time. If at any point you have to ask or are asked “are you running prep” “is anyone keeping time” then someone fucked up

General niceties. I don’t care for them AT ALL and teams that really lean into it honestly piss me off. I get it’s PF or whatever, but I don’t really like it. I’ll list somethings that irk me and why.

A) Introducing yourself and team. For the love of god your speech is already so short, just get to the substance. I promise I will not vote for/against you bc you did/not introduced yourself. If it doesn’t count towards the ballot, it doesn’t matter. If you do it during your speech, I’ll be mad bc I don’t think your using your time strategically. If you do it before your speech your adding more time to the round that I cannot wait to get out of.

B) Roadmaps. Love a good roadmap, but your roadmap should be something along the lines of “aff case, neg case. I’ll be starting on x argument”. anything more than that and you’re wasting everyone’s time.

C) Saying things like “I’d like to take prep time” or anything that signals you’re asking me to use your time. It’s weird. It’s your time. Idc how you use it. Take ownership of your time.

D) Normalize “is anyone not ready” before speeches and “you ready” for cross. This is especially important for online environment where verbal cues are a less common. Things like “is my judge ready” really bother me.

E) This is a catch all. Do not involve me into your debate anymore than I have too. I’m here to evaluate arguments, nothing more. Please ask questions before your debate that you think will help you but once the timer starts I’m chilling.

F) This doesn't mean you get to be mean. Filter out what is and is not necessary.