Background:

I'm a parent of two children in speech and debate. I'm awestruck by the many things about the community:

• The real partnership between the parent/teachers and the students. The parents *really* care about the success of the community, and the students create such beautiful pieces of "verbal art". This interplay is magical to me.

• The vector of growth of nearly every student over the course of the season. It's flattering to watch a specific orator/debater incorporate feedback you've given them earlier in the season, and then watch them hone and improve their art over time.

General:

Debate is to me an exercise of research, oration, logic, education, and decorum. All five of these aspects are vitally important when one ventures into their eventual career path. The general speech and debate student gives better presentations than 80% of the people in my field of work -- this is not an exaggeration. That being said, those five factors inform my judging paradigm and philosophy.

Paradigm:

My letter of the law paradigm is hypothesis testing, mostly because I am not skilled enough to judge otherwise. Think of this paradigm as the use of rhetorical devices in a scientific manner to disprove your opponent(s)' null hypothesis.

For practical purposes it should be considered a clean slate (tabula rasa) approach. I've seen published versions online on tabula rasa, and those don't really match up 100% to my philosophy. I just kind of take the actual translation of the phrase tabula rasa and go from there. If this is policy/CX, this means that it's 100% tech over truth. That is, if your opponents have a wacko source that says the human population on Mars is higher than Earth's, you'll have to address this in your flow. If this is LD or PF, then it's "mostly" tech over truth -- I will intervene if a warranted "non-fact" is introduced and I have 99.7% certainty that it is indeed a "non-fact".

Think of me as a juror on a civil case -- I will weigh my verdict based on the preponderance of evidence and logic, and I will likely ask for specific evidence cited in your case.

Preferences:

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as I can understand what you're saying.

Evidence: Sign post. If you are going fast, please make an emphatic "Next" or "And" between your taglines. I try to flow the tag line, the author/year, and a few bullet points from the EV that is read. If the internet is available at the tournament, please feel free to add me to your email chain: kurtis_araki at yahoo dot com.

Cross-Ex: I flow it.

Topicality: Just follow the general "counter interpretation, violation, standards and voters" model.

Theory: Run it as if I've never heard of it before. Not being well versed in debate jargon hurts my ability to give you a good summary of what I know, but it seems like it should be run similarly to topicality.

Kritiks: Up until recently, I thought I was okay with Kritiks. Then, I was hit by something I hadn't heard before called a "Deleuze" K. So, adjusting to this, I highly recommend that you prepare me as a judge that you will be running a Kritik. Run it very slowly. Perhaps signposting "Link", "Impacts", "Alternative" will make it easier for me to flow. Make it 100% obvious how it ties into the resolution/plan. Alts must either include a counterplan or a warranted and active agent in the status quo.

Kritikal Affs: I don't understand them. Please do not run them.

Performance Affs: I also don't understand these. Please do not run them.

Morally abhorrent stances: Despite my want to be 100% tech over truth, I won't accept "Genocide good", "Extinction good", "Debate bad", or "Racism good" as part of a link chain. If your opponents explicitly state any of these four abhorrent stances as part of any of their link chains, and if you point it out and flow it to the end, you will win the ballot. As a note, your opponents have to explicitly state it in an unprompted manner.

Time: I don't consider evidence exchange as prep time. Please do not have your hands on your laptop or pen in hand while receiving your opponents evidence. I'll leave it up to the competitors if they want to self time or if they want me to govern strictly.

Gender Pronouns: Try your best to respect each other's preferred gender pronouns. It will not affect my ballot if you or your opponent makes a mistake in gender pronoun usage.

Wuddup! I am a former Policy/PF debater from Capital with a little bit of experience in Congress. Yes, I want to be on the email chain; lilybalanoff1025@gmail.com

Paradigm

I consider each debate a clean slate. I will go into specifics for how I evaluate argumentation in each debate type, but I view the round without preconceived biases or framework for how the debate advances. I expect clean debates; arguments offered are clashed, burdens are met, etc. I prefer quantitative logic heavily over qualitative— philosophy is fine if it is warranted with factual evidence. In conclusion, I will adjust to the course the debate takes as long as it is warranted, clean, and evokes an academic “conversation”. I will, however, NOT tolerate a space of ridicule, subjugation, and/or alienation to race, religion, use of pronouns, sex, identity, physical and cognitive ability, gender, and/or other assets of a person that has absolutely NOTHING to do with one's ability to debate. If any parties in the round that I judge experience any of the stated, I will be awarding an L to the team who engages in this behavior.

Preferences

In regards to all debate types, my preference on the following are universally applicable:

Jargon: I am pretty familiar with all uses of Jargon, but if it's something not regularly used, it wouldn't hurt to define the word.

Speed: I do not mind speed as long as you aren't reading your tag and mumbling the actual evidence. If I can't understand you, it's not going on my flow.

Evidence: Sources are provided per request by a competitor or your judge. I also appreciate signposting. A lot. Like if you don't sign post, I almost won't put it on my flow... Like 99% of the time.

Cross Examination: Be respectful.

Tag teaming: It's fine as long as you don't solely rely on your partner, which can result in a loss of speaker points.

Specific Expectations/Prefs

· Kritiks: Extend the ALT through all areas of your case- not just the K. I'm not going to vote on theory unless the AFF does not provide an accessible ALT that does not skew ground. *K AFFS* The AFF should focus on the case interp rather than debating the NEG's interp- the K's interp should prove more valid than the neg for the ALT to work anyways. In return, I prefer negative arguments to either thoroughly deconstruct the K or provide an accessible perm, or argue theory under loss of AFF interpretation.

· Counterplans: CP's are dubs if used against lucid AFFs. Throw the CP in the 1NR.

· Disadvantages: No one uses DA's and they should. I would HIGHLY suggest you use a DA. As long as it's not thrown out in the 1NR, we're golden. Oh, sign post haha.

· Topicality: If NEG drops/concedes T, it's dropped and blows over for the rest of the round- I don't consider it as an AFF win, because I expect the AFFto provide topical interps. However, if the AFF concedes T, that automatically presumes the NEG interp and is therefore weighed in the round (and NEG wins T). Sign posting is a panty dropper.

· Framework: I'll weigh whatever FW is offered in the round. If there are competing FW's, tell me why your FW is the most feasible for evaluating the round. Tell me what to do.

· Solvency: Implied solvency is fine, but if it's not definitive by the end of the 1AC/proven in CX with use of evidence from the case, any use of Topicality or Theory from the neg will win the round.

· Time: I will hold the official time. I do not consider an evidence exchange as prep time, but if flashing takes an excessive amount of time I will tack it on to your prep time. I will also encourage you to sign post lmao.

Overall, I weigh respect over any argument. If I pick up on any disrespect in or out of the round, it will go into my consideration of the round and may go to tabs if I see it fit for further evaluation. Please have fun. I like jokes, so if you make me laugh, you might get a dub.

Overall I am a communications style judge.

For Public Forum/Lincoln Douglas:

I'm often a beginner on the topic so clarify any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or advanced concepts when used.

Your off-time road map, as well as clear signposting during your speech, are important and appreciated for my notetaking. Slow down and really emphasize each of your contentions and evidence tag lines so that I can make myself notes.

As for speed: I'm OK with a fairly fast pace presentation as long as you are completely understandable using good diction and clarity and that the arguments are clear. If you lose me, you've lost the argument. I suggest that you consider presenting your best arguments well and skip just trying to squeeze more in.

I like line-by-line refutation of arguments presented by the opposing team.

Respectful clash in cross makes debate interesting and helps me be attentive.

I will compare and weigh the arguments presented, including likely and convincing impacts.

End with voters and impacts...go ahead and write my ballot for me in your final speech :)

In Lincoln Douglas debate, all the above information applies. I think definitions, resolution analysis, and framework are an important and interesting part of this style of debate but don't make them the only focus of your argumentation. I love to hear clear and specific arguments about the topic. I will base my vote on any and all arguments presented.

Policy Debate:

Consider me a "Comms" judge. Please avoid debate abbreviations and jargon as much as possible, taking time to translate debate lingo in my brain distracts me from understanding your important information.

Speed will NOT be in your favor. Slow down, start from the beginning, define terms, present your best arguments, and explain it all to me. Do not just read your evidence cards and expect me to interpret how that supports your case, tell me what it means.

I will judge on stock issues like topicality, inherency, and solvency, but I would prefer to be weighing really good arguments with supporting evidence provided by both sides. I take notes about the information presented, but I don't "flow" the way you do. You should directly refute the arguments presented by the opposing team, but rarely do I vote purely on "flow through" unrefuted sub-points. Generally, I'm looking for the evidence and arguments that are most believable for me. In terms of impacts, I will prefer the likelihood of negative impacts occurring over the magnitude of devastation. Good luck!

Congress:

I love well organized and passionately presented arguments designed to convince your fellow Representatives to vote with you. Well researched and prepared speeches are appreciated, but how they are presented definitely impacts the score I give. Eye contact and presentation with purposeful variation in volume, tone, pace, and inflection for impact and persuasion will set you apart for me.

The bills and resolutions being argued are interesting, but I like the discussion to move forward. So, if you have a prepared speech that just restates points already presented, I would prefer you didn't give it. I like it when speeches given later in the discussion refer to points previously made by other representatives and either support or refute them. I also think that extemporaneously style speeches with fresh points given later in the discussion can be impactful, so feel free to listen to the discussion, use your brain, common sense, and add something meaningful to the discussion even if you did not originally have something prepared for this bill.

The debaters will create my lens to evaluate the flow and ultimately decide on how I will vote.

At the end of the day I will always sign for the best policy or plan that is presented to me. Debate is a complex environment with a lot of moving gears and mechanisms once arguments are deployed. The job of the debaters is to keep these gears clashing but organized while looking for the best solution to the harms. Setting up your framework will help build your house of cards, but your knowledge of the literature will reinforce the weight. Comfortable with any strategy, but still expect your story to be told and well formed. I can only evaluate a round based off of information included on my flow.

Debate from your flow to keep both me and the rest of the room literally on the same page.

*What is the Role of the Ballot? -- Spin it how you want. *

Have fun, be nice, and learn every round.

Preferred Debate Styles:Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Policy, Congress

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches? Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches? Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence? No preferences

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision? Will impact speaker points very negatively

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position? Up to debaters

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position? All are ok/can be persuasive

Please explain your views on kritical arguments. Ok in policy debate, not in other debate types

How should debaters run on case arguments? Up to debaters

How should debaters run off case arguments? Up to debaters.

How should Debaters run theory arguments? Up to debaters

What other preferences do you have, as a judge? 1)I appreciate good clash— addressing the other side’s points not just repeating your points. Explain to me why your argument is better than the other side’s argument.

2) In rebuttals focus on winning the debate, not trying to win every argument that has been in dispute during the round.

3) I respect (and expect the debaters to understand) the differences between the different styles of debate. I don’t judge the same way in every type of debate, so please don’t debate in an LD or PF round the same way you would in a policy round. Accordingly, speed/spread in policy is ok, but not effective in PF or LD (ie you won’t lose my ballot in PF or LD because you spoke too fast, you will lose because your speed detracts from developing your arguments and making them persuasive to me). Note, even in policy ensure that when you read the evidence fast the card is still comprehensible. Kritiks are ok in policy, not in LD or PF.

Debate Experience. I was a former high school policy debater so am very familiar with that style, but I have judged rounds the past 2 years in LD and PF, in addition to policy.

Experience: Sixth year judging high school debate ... still just a mom judge.

Paradigm: I'm going to vote on the flow, and clash. Crystallize! Quality is better than Quantity for Voters.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I catch your tag lines if you want it on my flow. You can run Theory and/or Kritic to your heart's content. Don't get mad at me if I don't get the point ... it is your job to sell it, I'm not required to buy it.

While I did not compete in high school, I have competed in college for 4 years. I am in my senior year and I will be graduating in May. I have won two national championships (hopefully soon to be a 3rd), been top competitor at many tournaments, and won in all divisions both in debate and individual events. I know the bravery, hard work, and intellect required to get good at this and I respect anyone who is willing to work to get good at forensics.

If you can say it, I can flow it. The problem I often see is that people think they can talk faster than they actually can. Spreading is a unique weapon in forensics that is most effective against lesser experienced competitors, but it really makes you look like an a-hole. If you spread, you might (probably not) win but it will cost you in speaks. Speak at a speed that you are comfortable with. Both you and I would rather be able to understand you than just get gibberish on the flow. Be clear, use signposting, layout your logic, and give me the impacts. I don’t like to intervene but if you don’t do your job I will have to and I won’t enjoy that, speaker points suffer from that. Be courteous and conscientious of your opponent. Too often do I witness high school debaters morph into bullies as soon as they are done thanking the judge and their opponent. I WILL drop you if you make your round lose its educational, discursive, or advocacy values.

I HATE framework debates. Find the battlefield that is fair for both sides and move on. We are debating over the resolution, not whether or not the definition of “is” was stated. When you are in rebuttal don’t just say “look at my first contention,” that doesn’t tell me anything. Tell me where you win, where your opponent loses, use logic and linking throughout, and more than likely you will win. Jargon and techy debate doesn’t win my vote either. Your idea of a perm might be different than mine. Use your vocabulary and skills to win not a hope and a prayer. If your opponent drops something tell me why it matters, just saying they dropped something doesn’t tell me anything.

Bonus: If you call out a fallacy (and name the fallacy) from your opponent and I agree, you will get bonus points from me. It makes me question your opponent’s case and logic and 9/10 times it will give you my ballot.