she/her/hers

If you have any questions or want to make clarifications about my paradigm, please feel free to email me below!

email: (use the first one more often than the other unless you have something really urgent)

clover552011@gmail.com

sophialuo@g.ucla.edu

Hi everyone! My name is Sophia Luo (Loo), and I was a parli debater at Washington High School for 4 years. I broke at some tournaments, won the Wolfpack Invitational, and broke to TOC with my lovely former partner Isabella Morales (yay :)). tldr, my paradigm is very similar to hers. I'm currently a first year student at UCLA majoring in Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology. If you have any questions about college or college apps, pre or post round, feel free to ask!

Please speak however you feel like; my speaker points will only be a reflection of your arguments, and I will give you low speaker points if you're being bigoted or you purposefully tried to exclude your opponents.

I ran a lot of kritiks in the last two years, and I absolutely love them :)) I mainly ran marx, so i’m not familiar with lit that’s not too similar to colonialism, capitalism, etc. BUT please feel free to run literally any literature, theory, philosophy, you name it as long as you can explain it well. That being said, I am not a diehard k lover, so do not run a k because you think it will win you the round. Please run the k because you genuinely think it’s a perspective that you care about enough to resolve arguments in the round or because you believe it makes debate more accessible to you in the round. Kritiks can be super helpful in bringing non-topic specific education to the round for groups of people who may not be represented in policymaking.

In short, i don’t really have any preferences for rounds; please just be you! Above ALL else though, all individuals participating in the debate MUST be respectful to everyone and whenever you make references to outside groups of people. I think it’s important to remember that if you don’t identify with a group of individuals, you do not speak for them, so please check your privilege in the round. I do not tolerate any bigoted behavior of any kind. If you engage in anything racist, transphobic, etc., I will not only tank your speaker points, but I will also have a serious conversation with y'all and take the issue up to the tournament’s equity committee.

Onto some debate stuff:

• I evaluate on an offense-defense paradigm. Please do not just run defense because that evaluation is a headache.
  
  

• Please say content warnings/trigger warnings! Let’s try to make the debate space as safe as possible for everyone :))
  
  

• For speed, speak as fast as you want. The caveat to this is please be conscious of your speed if your opponents or me say “slow” or “clear”. If I notice that you are not modulating your speed based on others’ feedback, I will reflect that in your speaker points. Also if I cannot understand you, I won’t be able to judge properly. In my experience, I find that some of the best debaters don’t have to speak fast to get their message across. Try finding a way to either cut out parts of your speech or concise your words. I promise you that time management in your speech is a skill that will take you miles in your debate career.
  
  

• Please give me and your opponents an off-time road map! I encourage them just so that everyone can remain organized in the debate space. Also, if I don’t know the order of your speech, I literally won’t be able to follow you, meaning if you were going to say something important, I’m probably not going to write it down.
  
  

• PLEASE SIGNPOST. While I’m flowing on a computer, the same arguments apply for speed; if I don’t know where you are on the flow, I literally don't know where to write down your argument. It might even get lost.
  
  

• On POIs and POOs

• limit your POIs to 2 or 3 max per speech; there might be situations where you will need to ask more (and you will know what situations these are), but the rule of thumb for me is like 2-3; if the round permits flex time, it might be more strategic for you to raise the POI there. Make your POI’s no longer than 15 seconds. Please :((
  
  

• On POOs, please call them! I will do my best to protect the flow but I make mistakes too and forget to catch stuff. Also, limit these to 2-3. Moreover, if I find that someone is arguing that POO’s aren’t allowed…. (because this has happened too many times to me in my debate career), please reread the tournament invitation :) I will say though to please be sparing of your POOs because barraging your opponents with POOs can be harmful to them, so after the 3rd one, just stop because I WILL be more alert and take note of them.
  
  

• PUT TEXTS IN THE CHAT (ONLINE) OR WRITE THEM DOWN AND PASS THEM TO YOUR OPPONENTS AND ME (IN PERSON). Please make sure your texts match what was orally said because I WILL ONLY GO OFF THE TEXT IN THE CHAT/ON PAPER PASSED TO ME.
  
  

• I will be as tabula rasa as possible meaning I will not insert any of my biases or my own interpretations when evaluating the debate; this means that if you explain something that I don’t understand, I will not evaluate it. This does not mean that I will take your claims as true if you don’t supply it with a warrant. Unwarranted claims will not be in my evaluation.
  
  

• On weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits/utilitarianism unless specified otherwise.

• Im good on tag teaming

• Tell me where to vote and why; it’s as simple as that.

• Do not post round me. Ask any questions during the round.

Case debate:

• Love them :)) I did this most of the time besides running K’s, and I think you can learn A LOT from topic specific education.
  
  

• If you’re running any tricky CP’s or interesting texts, go for it! Make this debate interesting :))

• I’d encourage you all to ask the status of CP’s

• Run whatever CP you want
  
  

• please make use of your solvency/CP solvency and actually provide good warrants there :)) this could be your greatest tool in resolving debates sometimes
  
  

• Please terminalize your impacts otherwise I don’t know why you ran the argument.
  
  

• Please make sure your links are strong and warranted because I find this can be the weakest part of the debate that some debaters don’t formulate well.
  
  

• I won’t extend for you. I will consider shadow extensions as new points and won’t consider them in the PMR and LOR.
  
  

• And pleaseeee weigh in the last speeches PLEASE. If you have to throw out the old words of magnitude, probability, and time frame, wonderful. I don’t default to any impact calc category; you determine which one is more important so my evaluation is easier. I will not do that work for you.

Kritiks:

• We love them :)) I thought they always brought such an interesting educational aspect to the debate. But please me mindful as to why you’re running the k. Are you running it because you believe you can score an easy win, using inaccessible and dense literature that’s not understandable to others, or actually trying to spread k-education because you care about it and/or pointing out abusive behavior in the debate space?

• I mainly ran marx and other anti-cap/anti-colonialist perspectives, but as i said, i’m literally down for anything.

• Do not run the k assuming the identities of your opponents.

• Please have your links be as specific as possible. If you run generic links…. Im going to get bored fast.

• As i said earlier, do not run k’s that weaponize others’ identities you do not represent to make your argument. That’s just not okay. You can win the round in other ways unless the alternative is just morally reprehensible, which won't happen because you CAN and WILL find other ways.

• If you’re going to go for something very philosophical or obscure, PLEASE explain it WELL. Maybe its because of my vocabulary, but the first time I heard a D and G k….. And the word striated with little to no explanation… my soul kind of left my body. Bottom line, run whatever philosophical K you want. Just please understand that jargon can get really exclusionary and make sure you actually understand the literature of your k.

• be wary of your alt solvency. I find that most debaters don't have a good alt solvency, and this can sometimes tank all the work you tried to build. Use that solvency and cross apply it if you can!

• If you’re running an aff k, go for it but please disclose to your opponents at the START of prep-time so like in the first 5 minutes. I didn’t hit too many aff k’s in my time as a debater, so I might be rusty on them, but I’m fine with it as long as you provide a reason as to why you aren’t topical.

Theory:

• tldr: I have a low threshold for theory. This means that you can run literally any kind, but I will note that my experience for encountering a variety of theories is intermediate. I don't know all the different types of theories but I'm pretty sure i've heard of them. So the best practice is explain stuff well, you'll be fine.

• On friv T: i’m chill with it. I never ran it in my time because I normally ran t if my opponents were being abusive in round, but if your opponents can roll with you on the friv t, then do it. If i find that you ran the friv t to make the space inaccessible to someone who doesn’t understand theory like at all, I will drop you. So if I notice that you don’t drop the friv T after the opponent makes it 100% clear that they don’t understand theories at all, that’s when this will happen. Other than that, have as much fun with it as you want. If you ran the friv t because you have no case arguments…… sigh. But that’s fine because I understand that it’s all strategy.

• FAIR WARNING: I will kill your speaks if you ran a really abusive friv T though even if I vote for you on the friv T (credits to anika shah :))
  
  

• For teams on the receiving end of theory: please respond to every section; give me the counterinterp, the counter standards, etc. If you can do work on the theory, do it. Otherwise, I will literally flow everything through, regardless of if it was friv t.
  
  

• Also if you’re running a theory that could’ve been resolved with a poi…. another sigh. To me, debate is an educational activity. I do not treat it as a game. We are actual people here so treat each other kindly.

• So this also means that if teams consistently say “i’ll take the poi at the end of my speech if I have time”, and then they don’t take the poi, feel free to run the theory.
  
  

• For RVI’s, i would just say that most judges tend to dislike them because they’re run incorrectly in my experience. I’m fine with RVI’s. But if you run it wrong… ya it’s off the table.

• I will default to competing interps.

Most important:

HAVE FUN! I know that debate can be such a stressful activity because it’s so easy to internalize our losses more than our wins. But please try to make debate as fun as it can for you! Take that competitive toxic aspect out of your debate mindset and not only will you perform so much better, you’ll have so much more fun. This is an educational activity for you :))

she/her

email (feel free to use either one, i look at both):

isabellacastmor@gmail.com

icm2122@barnard.edu

hi i’m bella! i did four years of parliamentary debate at washington high school. i broke at a few tournaments (including TOC woohoo) and got some speaking awards but upfront i am not a huge fan of speaker points as a concept and i will rarely give you low speaker points unless a truly staggering circumstance arises (ex. you were bigoted, in some way overtly excluded your opponents from the round etc.). but honestly, i don't care at all about the way you speak the only thing i care about are your arguments. throw around some jokes, toss in a few swear words if u really want to. just have fun in the round!

i ran a lot of kritiks throughout my last two years in debate and i LOVE them!! if you run a kritik i will probably be happy (for more details on that, head over to the kritik section of my paradigm). that being said, im not a k hack so don’t expect to win on a badly run k you don’t know the lit on just because i like k’s. i think kritiks are most valuable when used as a way to gain access to a debate space that is often inaccessible (which is why i am less excited about super highbrow kritiks that not many people know the vocabulary for). additionally, they can just be super valuable for bringing non-topic-specific education to a debate space that usually prioritizes and benefits people who fit certain categories and benefit from the societal structures surrounding policymaking. tldr: love kritiks but know ur stuff and run it for the right reasons

i’m now a first-year student at barnard college with an intended major in history with a concentration either in money, markets, and labor or in colonialism and imperialism so if you have any college questions feel free to chat with me! if the other team is late im so down to just chat with y’all -- ask me about college applications, ask me about my classes, ask me about new york, ask me about debate, anything!

overall i have very few preferences and would like to put as little restrictions on you as a debater as possible. of course, if you are being overtly bigoted (being racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc.) i will have no qualms about dropping you immediately and your speaker points will reflect the contempt i hold for that kind of abusive behavior.

now onto the good stuff:

• first and foremost, please use content warnings! it’s just good practice and also makes me as a judge feel more at ease.

• on speed, i am ok with spreading if that is truly your heart’s desire. if it really becomes an issue or i think the other team is being disadvantaged, i will yell slow or clear. if the other team yells slow/clear and you do not accommodate them that will probably affect your speaker points. i understand having many points to go through but also try to manage your time well! if there are times in your speech where you can slow down, do so! it’s better to speak a little slower and use up your time than to speak incredibly fast with minutes to spare and nothing else to say (imo).

• call the point of order. i will do my absolute best to protect the flow but everyone makes mistakes! so please do so! don’t be gratuitous with it, though, unless the team you are challenging is being gratuitous with new arguments (it can just end up being such a barrier to someone’s speech when they are being barraged by poi’s or poo’s and as someone who has been on the receiving end of that many a time, it can get annoying, so just be considerate)

• off-time road maps are cool and i welcome them, they make things a lot easier.

• PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE signpost!! tell me exactly where u are on the flow throughout the round because it makes my life a little less complicated. im going to be flowing on a laptop for online tournaments and when i don’t know where ur at it becomes far more difficult for me to evaluate the flow at the end of the round. so….have mercy on me and signpost.

• PLEASE PUT TEXTS IN THE CHAT (online) PASS TEXTS (in person)!

• i will also try to be as tabula rasa as possible. i won’t inject my own personal biases into the round and won’t fill in for any gaps in your arguments unless it is absolutely necessary for me to have any sort of comprehension of the round. but point is: don’t have gaps in your argument in the first place so i can remain as non-interventionist as possible!

• if you are encountering arguments in the round that from a technical standpoint you have little experience with, please let me know in round and let me know how i should thus be evaluating your arguments and i will try to adopt that framework to the best of my ability. (ex, you are encountering a k and you have never responded to a kritik before, let me know! i would hate for a k, or any other argument, to be used to exclude people from a round)

• i default to net ben/util unless someone in the round tells me differently.

• tag teaming is fine

• please do not take more than 10-15 seconds to ask your POI. please.

• make it easy for me. tell me where to vote and why.

• if you have any questions at all about the contents of my paradigm please ask before the round and i will be happy to provide clarification!

• im also perfectly happy to be postrounded!

case debate:

• love it. when i was not running k’s, i stuck to good ol’ case debate. i think there is a lot of value to debating in this manner so i welcome you to have fun with it!

• i have a lot of fun evaluating tricky CP/plan texts that give you some unique offense but i also would not hold it against you if you went for generic arguments - it probably just means i won't be as excited by the round.

• links are probably the most important thing to me. if you don't have links i have no real reason to care about your impacts (which should be terminalized).

• also EXTEND. I won't make the extensions for you, it is up to the second speaker to extend points on the flow.

• also weighing is super cute. PLEASE do that. if u say the words magnitude, probability, and timeframe i will be very happy

• i default to probability in regards to impact calculus unless you tell me otherwise

kritiks:

• as previously stated, i LOVE kritiks and the kind of education they bring to the debate space!! please just be mindful of the reasons behind running your kritik. are you utilizing dense and inaccessible literature so u can get an easy win or are you trying to use the k to spread education and/or point out abusive behavior in pursuit of making debate more accessible/more socially conscious?

• most familiar with marx and other cap k's as that was my particular preference when i ran k’s in high school.

• please do not have generic links or i will cry and also not be so willing to vote on it.

• i am inclined to believe you should not run k's that hinge on making assumptions about the identity of your competitors.

• i would ask that you tread lightly when (or honestly just avoid?) running k’s that revolve around a group that you do not in any way belong to when you have another plausible way of winning the round without defending something morally reprehensible

• if you truly want to go for some really obscure philosophical stuff, explain it to me WELL ....if i hear the word hyperreality again with no explanation of what it means....i think larger philosophical discussions in the debate space through K’s can also end up being pretty exclusionary if the team running it does not explain it very well so just tread lightly and make sure you know your stuff if you’re going to run it.

• if you’re running a k on the aff please disclose to your opponents before the round starts. im also still trying to figure out how comfortable i feel with aff k’s so i may not be the best judge to run it in front of. that being said, if u run an aff k i will still evaluate it to the best of my ability but there should be a good reason you as the aff are not being topical.

theory

• is also cool. i honestly strayed away from theory a lot as a debater mostly because i did not use it as a strategic move but rather out of necessity when someone was obviously being abusive in the round. that being said, if u want to use theory as a strategic mechanism go for it.

• not a very big fan of frivolous theory especially when you have arguments you are able to go for. but if you do good work on your theory i will vote on it even if i don’t like the fact that you ran it.

• in regards to the above statement, if u are running theory on something that could have easily been answered in a ten-second poi.........eye roll. debate rounds, in my view, are meant to be educational and if y’all end up spending the entirety of the round arguing over some technicality that could have been clarified/resolved easily i will not only be a little annoyed but ill just be bored:(

• thus this is also a warning for teams who say “ill take it at the end” in regards to poi’s, maybe take some during your speech!

• ALL OF THIS BEING SAID…even with my dislike for friv t, if you are the team that is tasked with responding to it, PLEASE RESPOND TO IT. i won’t hack against friv t SO give me a counterinterp. give me responses on the standards, voters, all that jazz. or else i will literally have no choice but to vote for the friv t.

• open to hearing RVI’s

most importantly, have an educational debate and have fun! or else i'll be forced to tell a joke in the beginning of the round to lighten the mood and i am not that funny.

I debate Parli for four years at WHS and now I study nuclear engineering @ Berkeley

TLDR: I am a flow judge and evaluate tech>truth, I like evidence-based debates and will always evaluate evidence-based arguments and refs over every logical warrant unless you give me explicit reasons to do otherwise. If you are running a K you might want to refer to that part of the paradigm. I will also evaluate scientific evidence above all other types of evidence, I'll refer you to the K section if you want to know how this affects Ks.

Presentation:

please keep yourself to a speed that will let me comprehend you, (i.e. please don't spread your lungs out, I can take fast speeds but I'm growing old and my ability to understand speeches delivered at mach speed is waning).

I don't really care about formalities, just signpost.

I dislike speaker points, I will give you them based on how well you wrote your arguments

All texts in chat

Case:

This really should be like every other judge in parli debate. Evidence, warrants, impacts, extensions, etc. I like wide collapses because it gives me multiple reasons to prefer your advocacy. If you have a narrow collapse and it is a big-stick/round winner impact then I will obviously evaluate that above. You have to weigh impacts, if you don't you will lose. If both sides fail to weigh impacts, I will default to who wins their links.

- Constitutionality is NOT an impact, the constitution can be amended and changed.

Theory:

I am quite familiar with theory and was a bit of a theory hack in high school. I dislike lay theory a lot, don't try running it because it's really unclear what I'm supposed to do with it. If you are going to run theory, run it in Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters format. Theory is very viable when run correctly and I will not hesitate to vote on it. Also, extend your standards and make sure to do work on them because I often evaluate that before any major voter level arguments.

Some notes on Theory:

If your opponent runs Trigger Warning Theory, just apologize and make sure to read trigger warnings in future speeches. I don't want people arguing against the concept of trigger warnings because that's not only morally reprehensible but it also sets a dangerous precedent. If you still do not read relevant trigger warnings after your opponent has asked you or has run theory on you, I will drop you and tank your speaks.

"Friv Theory" is completely fine and I don't really have an issue with it unless it requires your opponents to do something like take off their shoes which can make them really uncomfortable. Otherwise, it is just as valid as any other argument in the debate. Tricks are super fun to judge and make the debate interesting.

I default to competing interps over reasonability; No preference for Fairness vs Education; If you run a K and decide to leverage it against Theory, it needs to be extremely well done. (If you say that Fairness skews eval of the flow, I will not consider opposition arguments about pre-round equity unless they manage to explain how it also skews eval of the flow); I will not eval "spirit of the interp" arguments.

I evaluate RVIs and have a fairly low threshold for them.

Finally, I am perfectly fine with replacing the weighing mechanism/definition if both sides agree to it and won't penalize either side. It's not necessary to run theory in those instances.

Kritiks

TLDR: You have to run the K super super well, I don't really have a tolerance for bad/weak argumentation on the K level. This means that given the information you provide, your links and impacts have to make logical sense to someone who has never read the source material. Your alt solvency also has to be really well explained, Ks are an all or nothing here, if you run a bad K that makes no logical sense I will point out logical inconsistencies and give your opponent the win by default.

Familiar Lit Areas:

- Security

- SetCol

- Anthro

- Religion

- Cap

Just because I mainly know these specific Lit Areas doesn't mean that I won't evaluate any other K. I love new and interesting Ks with interesting ideologies/ important systematic issues to highlight.

I love Ks and love seeing them be debated but there are very important boundaries to not cross.

POMO

I don't like pomo. I can briefly explain why if you ask but I would stray away from most pomo, nietzsche is fine tho.

Identity Ks

Identity Ks are important in debate because they are used as survival strats by marginalized groups in this space. That being said I have 3 main notes about Identity Ks.

1. Every other judge has already said this but DO NOT RUN A K ABOUT A GROUP YOU ARE NOT PART OF. I will drop you.

2. Do not assume your opponent to be CisHet, this can cause forced outing, and attempting to do so will result in you being dropped

3. Attacking the concept of religion or highlighting its rhetorical violence is NOT the same as attacking members of a specific religion. The former is a valid argument, the latter is an equity violation.

K Generics

Read extensive framework; Bonus points if your framework allows your opponent to leverage their case which means more clash

I will evaluate Theory against Ks so be prepared for that

Links are pretty important and I don't like the Epistemic Skew argument very much because it nonuniques itself imo. This means you have to actually win your links substantially. I am also very receptive to the perm double bind.

If you have any questions, please ask them before the round or email me at mehulnair@berkeley.edu.

Hello, I am a second year High School Parli debater. Please do not be bigoted or discriminatory in any manner; you don't have to be excessively kind to your competitors, but do not perform any actions that may induce a sense of unease or unhappiness in your competitors.

Speed: I don't mind spreading, but I will inform you if I can't keep pace by saying "clear".

Speaker Points: I will award speaker points based on the clarity of the presentation of your arguments and your efforts at being succinct, yet persuasive in your phrasing.

Disclaimer: You don't have to follow any specific format to win (although using formats can help with organization); as long as your arguments are clear, logical, and effective, you should be fine. Therefore, don't be afraid to introduce any argument if you believe it will help you win solely because it is not in a typical/formal formatted manner. I will vote on any types of arguments, as long as they are proven to be more important to the debate than any competing arguments.

Please signpost during your speeches; it helps to flow your arguments and any further references/response to them. Also, please put texts (theory interps, plan texts, etc.) in chat during online debates.

Please call a Point of Order if you believe it is warranted; I will try not to flow new arguments in the last two speeches, but I may make a mistake, so make sure to call a POO if you think you should.

Make sure to explain everything! (explored further in the Theory section)

I would like it if you could make any references to the ethereal substance that is donuts. (But, do not sacrifice precious time in order to do this; you will not win/get more speaker points solely for making these references, so only do it if you have ample time)

Case Debate: Ensure that all of your points connect: your uniqueness points, links, and impacts should seamlessly connect and not have any doubt about whether you actually access your impacts. Extending your arguments is pretty important as is weighing your impacts. (Please remember to signpost)

Theory: Frivolous or not, theory is a viable, strong argument to run (so run it at any opportunity that you want to). I am not against RVIs: give a good reason to run them and I will accept them. Make sure to actually explain stuff: actually explain how the violation occurred, actually explain how the voters of education/fairness are important and how they outweigh each other, and actually explain why adopting a drop the debater (or drop the argument) stance is preferable.

Kritiks: I have seen multiple Ks in action, but I have never ran them before. Consequently, I would prefer if spreading was a bit minimized and explanations were made quite clear. Specific links would be preferable to generic links; if you have generic links, they should definitely be applicable in the instance that you are using them.

- pronouns: she/her

- background:

hii i'm anika! i'm currently a junion at san jose state majoring in business management. i did debate (parli only) all four years at washington high school and broke at a few tournaments such as Stanford and TOC:) i was an assistant coach at MVLA for 2 years as well!

some random things about my judging methods:

- content/ trigger warnings please. also please feel free to announce pronouns in the beginning of your speech/ the round if you are comfortable doing so!

- talk as fast as u need to but make sure you're breathing. i'll yell slow/ clear if need be and if the other team yells it more than 3 times & you don't stop, i'm receptive to theory arguments relating to speed.

- weighing is so so important to me. a good rebuttal is important and i really need there to be a clear analysis of how i need to vote or i will have to think a lot and i don't want to!!

- DO NOT be rude, bigoted, etc. if you are, i will stop the round, kill speaks, drop you, and/ or put in a formal complaint.

- case debate:

even with all the time i spent in debate, i've always preferred case debate over everything. just make sure to be organized and structured, make sure to sign post, have clear link stories, and terminalize your impacts!! try and have good evidence and warranting too if possible. the more interesting the argument the better, it'd just be more fun to listen to but generics are cool too if you really want/ need them for your strat.

- theory:

when used right, theory is great. i liked theory in high school so i'll be responsive to theory arguments. fair warning: i am not a fan of friv T personally but if you run it and win on it, i'll vote for it. HOWEVER, i reserve the right to drop your speaks if you run friv t and the opposing team makes the argument that you were unfair/ creating an inaccessible round. basically, even if i have to vote for you on the argument, i still reserve the right to drop speaks.

rvis are cool.

have good interps pls, i struggled to come up with good interps for a while so i like seeing people do what i could not:D

PLEASE make sure that you weigh/ layer the theory against wtv else is in the round. don't make me have to think it all through and compare it for myself bc that means judge intervention and that's bad.

- kritiks:

honestly, i've never run a K. i've watched rounds with Ks in them and have gone against a few but idk how confident you can feel in my K knowledge. with that being said, if you really want/ need to run a K, go for it. make sure it's clear, organized (if u don't sign post i WILL get lost i promise), and make sure your links are really strong and clear. if you're running something that gets really deep in philosophy, you need to do a very good job of explaining it and the connection to the round. PLEASE DO NOT USE Ks AS A TACTIC TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE OR GROUPS IN ROUNDS. basically don't be immoral.

overall, i know this isn't super in depth so if you have specific questions, feel free to ask them before the round begins!

good luck!

About me: Senior at UC Berkeley majoring in Environmental Sciences and Legal Studies. Current Head Coach of Maybeck HS, former Assistant Coach for Berkeley High School (2021-2022), former captain of Washington HS's team 2019-2021). During my competitive run, my partner and I championed Stanford's national invitational and broke at Tournament of Champions; I now compete on the Cal Mock Trial Team

Case Debate:

• Argument structure - Please use a consistent argument structure throughout the round (e.g. uniqueness, links, and impacts) and signpost throughout your speech

• Always weigh your impacts - please terminalize and weigh your impacts. It's not enough for you to link out your advantages/disads to death or climate change. You have to explain how I should weigh those against the other impacts in the round.

• Citing evidence - Follow any rules for citing evidence that the tournament provides. If none are provided, citing the name of the source and date of publication is enough for me

Theory Debate:

• Feel free to run whatever kind of theory you want as long as you do sufficient weighing/layering (tell me how I should evaluate this argument compared to everything else in the round)

• Not a fan of frivolous theories and anything that's run to skew your opponents out of the round.

Kritiks:

• I'm generally unreceptive to K's but feel free to run them. If you do, please explain your framework, links, impacts, and alt very clearly and do sufficient weighing/layering.

• Please signpost because I may get lost if you don't

Final Comments:

This is just a brief summary of my judging preferences. Feel free to contact me at abishiva@berkeley.edu if you have any questions! And just remember that debate is a fun and educational activity, so just enjoy yourselves and you'll do great!