Update for NPDL-TOC 2024

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Introduction/Summary

Hello all! I hope this paradigm answers most of your questions, but please contact me at alex.abarca@yale.edu if you have any outstanding questions. I’m also happy to discuss debate in general. I’m a first-generation, low-income student and down to answer any questions about college!

I competed in NPDL-Parliamentary all four years in high school. I was a two-time NPDL TOC qualifier, a four-time state qualifier in IX (CHSSA), and a four-time national qualifier in IX (NSDA). I top spoke at the Jack Howe Long Beach Invitational and won the 2020 Stanford Invitational. In college, I was a member of the Yale Debate Association, served as tournament director for the 2022 Yale Invitational and Yale Osterweis Invitational, and judged both tournaments.

I have judged elimination rounds at NPDL-TOC 2021-2023 and the semifinal and final rounds in 2022. I have experience judging the West Coast Circuit and the NYPDL/East Coast Circuits.

I’m happy to judge either lay or tech rounds, but I see myself more as a traditional judge. I don’t like to think of debate as a game – we sometimes discuss heavy topics in rounds and articulate policies with theoretical real-world implications. Viewing debate as a game is unfair to our logic and skills, the people and situations we draw from when writing resolutions, and people who want to learn from this activity. Thankfully, theory usage as a strategy to win has begun to fall out of fashion in the community – I’m happy to judge theory debate when it’s well-warranted and called for. If you do it in an attempt to shut your opponent out of the round, I may vote for you, but don’t expect to speak above a 25.

TLDR of My Paradigm for Parliamentary Debate

I avoid speed and jargon unless you and your opponents agree on it (jargon such as turn/cross-apply/extend is great if both teams understand it!). I encourage the 1AR/1NR (PMR/LOR) to collapse functionally towards the most critical arguments and weigh (against both sides, even-ifs, and counterfactuals) using a variety of weighing styles (scope, magnitude, brink, etc.). In constructive speeches, connect your arguments to a definite weighing mechanism and the resolution. Be explicit in your definition and operationalization of terms (this will make your life easier when impacting arguments). As mentioned above, I am generally unreceptive to Kritiks or Theory unless they are well-warranted in the round and executed well and have some basis in either the resolution or an in-round fairness violation.

I encourage everyone to share their pronouns – although you are certainly not required to. Do not make harmful generalizations about groups of people in your argumentation. If your opponents argue with you on your rhetoric, I have a medium threshold for dropping you. If I vote for you, your speaks will suffer. Share content warnings with us before each speech where there is new content.

As a note for me: I have ADHD – please ignore my facial expressions and body gestures for the most part. If I stop flowing and give you a confused look, that’s a sign that you’ve lost me in terms of argumentation.

Specifics

How I Adjudicate

I look at the flow and see where the critical arguments in the round fall. From there, I consider which side won more of those critical arguments. I will vote as strictly on the flow as possible. In the case where everything is a wash, presumption flows to the opp unless there is a counterplan, in which case presumption flows gov.

In-Round Intervention

The act of having a paradigm means none of us are tabula rasa philosophically. However, I will not intervene in the round unless arguments or inaccuracies are called out. If something is factually wrong (especially in my field, Comparative Political Development/Representation Linkages), I have a low threshold for tossing an argument or fact out.

Argumentation

Have a clear framework, weighing mechanism or criterion, and have sound plan-text.

Use cohesive logic with well-structured link chains. Have strong and defined warrants coupled with transparent impact chains. If I hear, “This will improve the economy,” I will not be happy. In what way, in which sector, who will benefit from these improvements? This a gentle reminder that the more expansive the magnitude and severity of the impact, the tighter and more cohesive the link chain.

For refutation, please substantially interact with the argument. Consider the claim, warrant, link (internal/external), and impacts of the argument. I've been judging rounds recently where I keep using "ships passing in the night" in my RDF, and I'd rather not have to say that phrase again. Cloudy refutations mean I must intervene more in the flow, which is potentially bad for you.

In the rebuttal speeches, please have voting issues, explicit weighing, and collapse down to the most important arguments. Except for the PMR/1AR, you do not need to go down the flow line-by-line. In the case of the PMR/1AR, I suggest you interact with the most substantial new arguments in the opposition/negation block and not waste your five minutes going down the flow.

Organization:

Please signpost – I flow on spreadsheets, so signposting makes my life easier. If you don’t have clear signposting, there’s a high chance of me dropping an argument accidentally. I prefer using jargon such as turn/extend/cross-apply/etc., but only when both teams are comfortable using such language. Regardless of jargon, make it clear where you are on the flow.

Framework:

Provide a mechanism for flowing the round. Use this reference point to weigh all the arguments. Lately, I have judged rounds without such a reference – these rounds inevitably become a mess of “prefer our side – no, prefer our side.” Why should I prefer your side? How do your impacts and logic better link to the weighing mechanism? Impacts in a void are unhelpful – debate and life are relative.

Speaker Scores:

I start around 28 and then go up or down. More substantial argumentation and speaking will warrant higher speaker scores – where your contribution to the round is substantial. I disagree with judges who think anything rhetorical is irrelevant – how you convey your ideas matters, or why don’t we type out responses online and save ourselves the hassle of attending tournaments?

Theory

If used correctly, I am open to hearing almost any theory argument. I'm happy to judge the round if you sincerely believe a Kritik or Theory Shell is warranted. If you use a K or theory for strategic purposes, I will have a low threshold for voting against you if called out by your opponents. The history of theory debate is that marginalized groups and debaters used it to access better the space they had historically been shut out of. Using theory debate as a strategic decision without acknowledging these historical reasons is a disservice to the art of theory, philosophy, and the people who used them. I also believe that we can read more conceptual and technical arguments in a way that makes them more accessible while still retaining their core purpose.

As a first-generation, low-income, queer(bi), and Latinx former debater, I don’t think being against K’s as strategic gains is against minority debaters. I think we should all be inclusive first and then go to theory when that’s functionally not realistic or save it for the moments when we need that access or want an issue spotlighted in an accessible manner.

I've judged over 100 debate rounds in the last 2 years at this point. I will flow the round. The biggest caveat is that you should not spread. It does not enhance argumentation and just makes the debate less engaging and less educational. I am putting this at the top of my paradigm. If you decide to spread, and as a result get dropped, that is your fault for not reading the paradigm, not a judge screw.

Pref Cheat Sheet

Traditional Debate/Lay- 1

Slow, Policy-Style debate- 4

Complex Phil- 4

Tricks- 4

Ks- Strike

Friv Theory- Strike

Spreading- Strike

I hate Ks, not because I don't understand them, but because I think they are bad for debate education. I have the same stance on spreading, I see no point in cramming as much content as possible into a debate if i can't understand you.  It is anti-educational.

I would like there to be an email chain, especially for virtual debates. add me to it- sonalbatra14@gmail.com If you do not make an email chain that indicates you did not read the paradigm and will result in dropped speaks :)

I like a good, reasonable argument

Not a huge fan of theory, don't run a super frivolous shell. If your opponent is running a frivolous shell make a good argument for reasonability & you should be fine. BUT, absolutely use theory to check REAL abuse.

Spreading- Don't like it. I'll say clear twice & then stop flowing & dock your speaks. It is better to err on the side of caution. If it is a big problem you will be dropped.

Kritiks- I don't like them. I would say don't run them.

Flowing- I flow the round, but if you speak too quickly, the quality of this will significantly deteriorate.

Speaks- Speaker points tend to be "low". Being nice = higher speaks, Being mean/rude = lower speaks. I judge speaker points mostly as if you were in a speech event. If you spread, you will have VERY LOW speaks (think 26). I do believe in low point wins if the tournament allows.

Pet Peeves-

- telling me you won the debate (that is my decision)

- "we should just try" (no, if your opponent is proving active harms, we should not just try.)

- being rude to your opponent

- forcing progressive debate on traditional opponents, if your opponent asks for traditional, please do a traditional round.

Overall, you should run what you are comfortable with. It is better to run a case you know & are comfortable with than a case you don't know just to appease a judge. Just make sure everything is well warranted & linked, & we should be good!

Yo! I've debated in PF for a couple of years. Current senior in high school, please be nice to me.

Unfortunately no experience in LD, Parli, Policy or Congress. Good luck.

Top of the para:

Me personally do not believe theory and has a place in pofo. I'm a little more inclined towards Ks. I won't drop you if you run it, but I have some limitations on voting off of prog. -->

1). I am not good at evaluating progressive debate. Please keep this in mind. I will not be adept at handling the nuances of prog.

2). I will never vote solely off of prog. If you run theory or Ks, make sure you are still extending case. I generally agree with prog arguments in PF- but please make sure you actually care about bettering debate and the world. I despise people who abuse prog for easy wins. Also, if you run theory/K and your opponent are novices or very obviously do not know what you are saying, I will automatically drop the arg. I believe it is unfair to even consider these type of arguments if someone in the round is not even aware that prog debate exists as it only fosters a harder entry level for PF and elitism in general.

Don't say anything offensive. I have low tolerance for homophobic, sexist, and racist rhetoric of any kind.

Do not be rude to your opponent. It's fine to be assertive in cross or be a little sassy, but please make sure you are not disrespecting anyone in the round.

Debate preferences:

I will never be 100% tabula rasa, but I try my best to be. Treat me as if I don't know anything about the topic. I will never make connections or analysis for any team, even if I know what connection you are trying to make. You need to do that for me and make it clear.

Don't go too fast. I'm good with speed, but I have a limit. If your opponent didn't hear anything you just said, it's pretty likely I didn't either.

Signpost.

I vote on impacts. Make sure to extend your impacts and WEIGH. Tell me why I should value your impacts more. I can't do that analysis for you. You should be weighing by summary and this weighing should be extended into FF.

If you don't extend points into Summary, I will drop them, even if you bring them up again in Final Focus.

You can't bring up any new points past 1st Summary. I will not flow up any new evidence brought up in 2nd Summary and onwards.

With extending, you don't necessarily need to extend the exact card, although it is really helpful if you do. Just make sure to cleanly tell me which point you are extending, and why you are extending it. I will not do any analysis for you, so if you want to extend something, make it clear why it is relevant.

If there's a framework clash, extend your framework into every speech, or I will default to opponent's framework. Make sure to also extend the reasoning behind your framework: why should I be buying your framework over your opponents'?

If there's something wrong with your opponents' card, you need to call for it yourself and tell me that they are using shady cards. Furthermore, you can't call for it and have them drop it into email chain and then never address it again. Yes, I will read cards in the email chain. No, I will still not drop any evidence until you bring it up in a speech. Even if I personally think the card is shady, I will 100% buy it unless you tell me otherwise. If you do not tell me that the evidence they are using is faulty, I cannot make that connection for you.

If there is an evidence clash, you need to tell me why I should prefer your evidence over oppo's. If neither team tells me why their evidence is better and continues to push the contradictory evidence, I will drop the point from the debate entirely.

If you have any questions about my decision or any questions in general, feel free to email me at chenclaire2006@gmail.com! Also add me to the email chain. I prefer evidence docs but do whatever you are comfortable with.

Have fun and good luck!

flintridge prep '23, uc berkeley '27

i debated under flintridge prep cy (or yc) and did ok

put me on the email chain: danielchoi758@berkeley.edu

tldr

• send speech docs before speech whenever u read new cards
• weigh
• extend
• run whatever u want

general (this is all pf specific)

• tech > truth
• frontline in 2nd rebuttal
• extend everything ur going for in summary
• collapse
• if it's not in summary it can't be in final focus; unless it's new weighing in first final or responding to the new stuff brought up in first final
• post rounding is fine idc

things i like

• weighing (not the bs prewritten weighing u can say for any round but the comparative prereq, short circuit, etc that requires a little more thinking)
• actual clash
• speed if you articulate well
• speech docs before your speech
• not misrepresenting evidence
• tricks
• staying within the time of your speech
• dr. pepper

things to know

• PLEASE DO NOT CALL ME JUDGE EVERY 10 SECONDS
• if evidence is disputed throughout the round then i will call for it.
• i will not time anyone so if ur opponents go over time then hold up ur stopwatch (do not use a timer that rings because it's rude and obnoxious. if u see that i'm flowing even though time is up over 10 seconds, knock on the table a couple times so i look at u with ur timer up)
• it's a debate so you can run any argument you want as long as you defend it better than ur opponents' responses against it
• slow ev exchanges r my least favorite parts of debates so make it quick, preferably just rly quickly send cut cards before speech. also taking over 30 seconds to find a card is so sus
• dont ask every single person in the round individually if they're ready
• i know time starts on ur first word or in 3, 2, 1; just give ur speech

how i evaluate rounds

1. i see who's winning the weighing
2. if you are winning the weighing, i look to your case and see if your winning your case. if you are, then congrats, you won the round
3. if you are not winning your case then your weighing doesn't matter so i look to see if your opponents are winning their case. if they are, then they win.
4. if neither side weighs but both are winning their cases, then i will break the tie by calling for your evidence to see which sides' is better
5. if both sides have equally good/bad evidence, i will presume neg

I am a parent judge. I would like to see a speech that is fast enough to get all of the points in but slow enough for me to understand. I would like to see logical cases backed by evidence. The most important thing is to have fun!!!!

Hi! I am a lay judge.

I dislike spreading and value interacting with your opponent's arguments well.

I am a judge with experience judging multiple debate tournaments throughout the entirety of 2021. I've mainly done LD and PF, but I also have judged some Parliamentary, Congress, and individual events as well.

I believe it is important for things such a debate to be accessible to anyone, so clarity in communicating ideas and speaking at a clear, easy to understand speed will be important to me, as well as clearly articulating tag-lines of arguments, and I would prefer refraining from jargon when possible.

I will mainly try to judge Tabula Rasa, as I believe it is fair and important for the debaters to have control over what the rules of the debate are, and if those rules are mutually agreed upon, then it sets everyone up for the highest level of success. I won't be bringing preconceived notions into the debate, as I would prefer to judge to debaters on the merits of what they bring to each round.

In the last speeches of the round, I want you to tell me which argument you think I should vote on and WHY, and how it compares to the other team's argument.

Have debated PF for 4 years. I flow and vote tech. Speed is cool but no spreading.

I graduated UCLA with a political science degree. My volunteer background is youth work and educational volunteering overseas. I have worked on education teams in Haiti, Mexico, Canada and South Korea. I also speak, read and write Korean, and have worked as a youth mentor and tutor in Seoul, Dallas and Missouri. Debate is very important to me because I see its positive influences on young people. When I judge rounds, I want all competitors to be polite to each other, stick to the facts of their case, and explain to me why their side should win. Do not spread because I am not a spread judge. Clear contentions are appreciated and will be rewarded with speaker points. I look forward to hearing you speak.

hs senior. i did debate lol. mostly pf/ext but experience in like everything

i can flow pls no prog

pls weigh and collapse

be nice

i dont care about cross

have fun

Here is a very brief summary of my high school debate experience and how I vote. Please ask me at the beginning of round if you have any follow-up questions and I'd be more than happy to elaborate. I apologize for the brevity of my paradigm, and I would've liked for you to have the opportunity to enter your debate round with the most informed approach possible, so I will do everything I can to make my judging stances clear to you at the start of each round, if you only ask me.

Three years of Parli, one year of policy, one year of PF experience.

The best parli rounds to me have strong warranting, consistent extensions and weighing, and organized signposting. Please be polite to one another. I can handle speed. Theory is fine.

Tech over truth. Since your sources aren't available during the round, I will be convinced of your evidence (or convinced to discredit your opponent's evidence) if you can use logic to explain to me why I should (or shouldn't) reasonably believe you. I am not persuaded to believe the validity of your argument if you just tell me your source is reputable.

PF: My paradigm for public forum is fairly simple. If you are using a framework make sure to weigh properly on it throughout the round. Weigh your arguments in the summary and final focus so I know who to vote for. Also be nice to each other please.

LD: Please do not spread in the round. I am a more traditional LD judge and was very traditional when I competed. If you run policy args you are going to have to do a very good job of convincing me because I will be coming in with a bias towards those types of arguments. Please use a value and value criterion and engage in the value debate.

I will judge as lay or as flow as you want.

Mia MW

I do PF, LD, Congress.

Dont lie. Entertain me.

Don't be racist, homophobic, or sexist. Other than that be as sarcastic as you want, I love an aggressive round.

don't be boring

Don't sacrifice content for speed

Varying volume levels (don't do one single boring tone)

Overall do your best to win. Good luck.

---PERSONAL INFO---

I did PF + Extemp. I mostly just like flowing stock, but I'll try to accept conversational Theory and Kritiks that I can understand; I prefer clean rhetoric over spread jargon unless you read me an interp that can convince me otherwise.

In my paradigm, a good debater is somebody that can make it abundantly CLEAR why they won. Think about why you started debate and why you have continued to do it; this is a learning experience! Stay respectful and try new things.

--- DEBATE ---

Debaters, I will assume you know what you're doing. Make the structure of your argument clear and meaningful IN your speech. Remember that debate is more than fast talking and dubious leaps in logic. Debate is communication. While on that topic, a note on speed:

CONVERSATIONAL ONLY, PLEASE.

Generally, I don't vote for cases I don't understand. If you want my ballot, practice brevity. Jargon's fine. Contention taglines should be slow enough for me to copy down exactly.

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

Paradigm.

Speaks: Debate in good faith. Attitude, respect, and accuracy count. I give better speaks in better rounds. Unless there is a serious offense committed in round, I won't go below 25. If there is something that I see, I will let you know explicitly. If you see something, I expect you to kritik or address it in round.

Theory: Topicality specifically first, since it's come up the most. On the defense, the topicality of your case should be obvious. Anything on the edge of topicality needs to be preemptively justified in the constructive to convince me that it is actually relevant. On the offense, again, I need an obvious violation and a substantially better interpretation to buy a topicality argument. This applies to all theory: give me the shortest version of your full shell.

Kritikal: ONLY use it if necessary. I will judge you not only on your choice of K, but execution, clarity and structure before considering it as an integral part of the round. I want an obvious link and a full internal link to your impact. Explain the alternative and role clearly and slowly. Please don't spread these, especially the more complex ones; I won't follow.

Counter-plan: Do it only when there is a plan that precedes your counter-plan. Don't run counter-plans against traditional debaters.

Tricks: I appreciate a good trick. Remain respectful of the format.

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

With the technical stuff out of the way, above all I want to make sure everyone enjoys the round thoroughly. Have fun with your cases; I am always interested to hear unorthodox methods! Happy Debating!

I am a fourth year debater at MBA. I have debated in plenty of rounds on the Immigration topic, so I am familiar with the topic.

Below is some useful information that I know I would look for when checking a judge's philosophy, but I try to judge mainly off the flow and the debating that occurs in round. That being said, good evidence helps and is important.

Put me on the email chain: jack.rankin19@montgomerybell.edu

T/FW

Fairness is an impact. Defending the resolution is always a good idea in front of me. Beating the AFF's case and theories about the world always helps. It isn't impossible to beat framework with me in the back because I'll judge these debates off the flow. A couple of smart and logical arguments from either side can change these debates.

Topicality

I'm down for whatever technical T debate you want. But AFF teams under-utilize substantive crowd-out as offense and reasonability.

Theory

Condo is generally good, but I am down for a technical theoretical debate. Most types of CP theory arguments are dumb, but again, you have to win the flow.

Framing

The AFF has to disprove the internal links to disads before probability framing makes sense. 1% risk of racism is an illogical argument. Solvency deficits on CPs need to be impacted out to outweigh the NEG's offense. If the CP solves the whole AFF, most framing arguments don't make sense.

Experienced Debate Judge. Compete mostly in Public Forum but have also competed in Policy and Lincoln Douglas. I dislike framework debate in Public Forum. I mostly judge based on flow, so whoever has the strongest arguments, refutations, rejoinders, and weighs will probably be the winner. In other words, whichever sides accesses the most impacts in the debate get my ballot. Speed is okay, but make sure that you are understandable because if I am not able to understand or flow what you say, it wont be considered in my RFD. I don't flow cross however if you concede an argument or make a good point during cross, I may consider it in my RFD. If you are disrespectful to your opponents, your partner, or myself, I won't be able to give you the ballot so be respectful.

Background: 4 years of high school speech and debate with Flintridge Prep. Competed mostly in Parliamentary and Big Questions but I have done Worlds and Policy

Overall, I'm game with whatever kind of round makes you feel the most comfortable and I'm willing to vote on pretty much any argument. However, please make it accessible to everyone else in the room (opponents and judges) who may not be comfortable with certain jargon or argumentation. I like rounds that have a lot of clash, but that doesn't mean you should expect me to remember every warrant you've read. Therefore, you should use the last speech to tell me a) what argument you won b) why you won it and c) why it should be enough to win the ballot- I should be able to follow this without having seen any of the debate beforehand (I will of course be flowing though). I will do my best not to intervene. Please maintain a sense of decorum and respect your opponents/judges- this matters more to me than who wins the round. Most importantly, make sure you are having fun!

Varsity Policy/LD stuff

I'm ok with speed as long as all judges/competitors are as well (access is important to me). Just send a speech doc (dylan.tanouye@gmail.com) and slow down for tags and analytics. If I can't understand your arguments, I won't be able to vote for you. Don't read theory just for the sake of trying to get your opponent to drop a disclosure shell, save it for genuine violations and I'll be more compelled to vote on it. I'm willing to listen to a K on both the aff and the neg, just explain your advocacy a little more than you normally would since I don't have a ton of experience here.

Good luck and feel free to ask me any questions before round!

Speech:

Your content matters as much as the way you speak. If you are not respectful to other speakers your rank will drop.

PF:

I am a flay judge and having a framework or being able to work under your opponent's framework is really good for helping me choose you to win.

I don't care about cross and will not judge off of anything during cross, if there is something said and you want me to flow it say it again in your speech.

You can speak fast but don't spread, there's a difference this isn't a varsity LD round.

If you call your opponents out for abuse for running too many contentions (ex if their case continues to 1st rebuttal) and it is a valid argument of abuse I will take that into consideration for sure.

If you have any questions let me know I'm chill and willing to help you out on anything

LD:

Spreading is not appreciated unless you are in varsity and if you are extremely content on spreading at a varsity level your opponent and myself should have access to what you are reading (unless tournament guidelines say different just lmk).

The short but sweet version

Former Socal parliamentary debater and two time TOC qualifier. Tabula rasa. Theory is fine as long as it's not frivolous, not a fan of Kritiks. I prefer emphasis on the links rather than the sources. I weigh probability heavily, if you have an extinction impact, you need to have clear evidence or reasoning for exactly why this extinction impact is more than 1% likely. Speed is fine until it turns to spreading. I will protect the flow, but I understand if you want to POO to make sure I see the violation. Otherwise, I'm just here to watch a good debate.

More Specific Stuff Theory

I view debate as a game with the overall goal of education. The only way that education can occur is if there exists a way to have a fair debate. I'm especially responsive to topicality arguments and ground skew. Speed theory is also fine. I'm less inclined to vote on prep skew, there needs to be a legitimate grievance that isn't just "my opponents' plan isn't just the default argument to make." I'm not a fan of truth-testing. I will not vote on any argument that requires the opponents to have or have a specific buzzword(ex, didn't say link as part of their argument). I view that knowledge as exclusionary and not relevant to the debate, if they provided a link without explicitly stating it's a link, it's still a link.

Kritiks

Do not, under any circumstances, ask me if I'm familiar with the Kritik before you run it. Firstly, I don't know the Kritik, secondly I view that as an inherent attempt to violate tabula rasa, which I'm a big fan of. You're also gonna need to talk relatively slowly and clearly, I am not super experienced with Kritiks and hate flowing them quickly. Honestly, you're probably better off not running the Kritik.

Speed

Just don't spread please.

Speaks

I am pretty generous with speaks, I start at 28 and go up or down half points for if anything egregious happens. I leave myself about .5 based on my personal opinion of you. Clear, confident, and not overly fast speaking will definitely get you higher speaks. If you spread, it's gonna be hard for me to give you much above a 29, but if you're super clear I'd be willing to do it. If you have anything which you think could negatively affect your speaks(e.g. a stutter) and am worried I won't pick up on the fact that you have that condition, just mention it to me and I'll accommodate you in whatever way is necessary.

Default weighing

I am heavily invested in probability. If I had to give it a mathematical formula, I would say it's weight = probability^2 * magnitude * impact * timeframe. You absolutely need to convince me that this could happen. I prefer if the team collapses to one argument in the end, it makes my direct comparison easier. If I feel you won the round on something else, I'll obviously apply that first. I consider extinction impacts to have infinite magnitude, but at a certain point I may consider their probability to be 0.

DO's and DONT's: Do

Use logic heavy arguments with clear connections between your evidence and impacts.

Clearly state your magnitude, impact, and time frame(you don't need to use those exact words though).

Ask frequent POI's if applicable.

Don't

Bully your opponents for not knowing a specific part of a debate framework.

Go for loosely linked extinction impacts.

Spread, run Kritk's, or use frivolous theory.

Picture of My Cat

Picture of my cat.

hello! i’m tanya (she/her), debated for westridge, and 2x qual to toc. now debating w/ yesh rao at cal

email for docs: weitanya5 [at] gmail [dot] com but i prefer speechdrop

people that impacted my views on debate the most: samantha mcloughlin and elmer yang

general

i will not vote on any arguments that make debate unsafe, including any defense of genocide, homophobia, racism, sexism, etc-ism. debate is a game but in round accessibility matters, and if your opponent is clearly uncomfortable with any of the previous the arguments presented i will drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible

slow down on analytics. i flow what i can understand, so if you are going too fast or unclear, i will probably stop flowing

i do not feel comfortable adjudicating personal narratives/performances/survival strats/ad-homs

i will not vote on tricks, even if dropped

policy

i primarily read these arguments in high school, favorites were creative, topic-germane process cps and impact turns

default judgekick, neg on presumption, condo/pics good, but can be persuaded otherwise

best speeches have good mix of line-by-line, weighing, judge instruction, and argument resolution

i think ev quality is extremely important but would prefer to not be reading cards to resolve debates so please compare author quals, extend warrants, weigh, etc.

inserting rehl is good and very underutilized but explain what you’re inserting

k

i read a topical k aff for every topic i debated and enjoyed having k debates on both sides. i’m most familiar w setcol, semiocap, baudrillard, and critiques of ir, but am open to evaluating anything

not as good for non t affs and pomo (never ran them) but i’m open to evaluating them – err on the side of over explanation, contextualization, and line by lining

clash/skills >>> fairness, debating the topic is probably good (could be persuaded otherwise)

i love cx in k debates! cx is binding, so please don’t embarrass yourself by not being able to explain the alt. good cx's will be rewarded w high spks

best 1ars vs topicality have a built-in critique of topic ed/limits/ground, impact turns fairness, and a solid counterinterp

i enjoy speeches that have a solid understanding of the theory of power, good link contextualization (pull lines from the 1ac), coherent explanation of the alt, and don’t rely on long, scripted overviews that throw around buzzwords

phil

i would really prefer to not judge these debates but if you must, please err on over explanation

defaulted to the k (setcol) or a process cp + no if when i debated phil

i have a very basic understanding of kant/virtue ethics/determinism and am not not super good for anything else

theory

be clear and slow when reading analytics – if i can’t flow it, i won’t vote for it

default reasonability, dtd for topicality, dta for cp theory/everything else, no rvi, arbitrariness/inf regress is probably true