hey babes! I'm Abigail Chen, a current senior at Campo. My experience of debate is limited to parli, and I've been in the circuit for 4 years.

(if you don't understand any terms/jargon in this paradigm, don't worry abt it, it's probably not a big deal, and always feel free to ask questions if you wanna)

short short version:

make a taylor swift refence and i will give you 29 speaks (the more obscure the better)

short version (which at this point should really just be tagged misc)

• tech > truth
• open to hearing any and all arguments
• I can handle mild spreading, but c'mon don't bully your opponents with your ability to talk fast
• please for the love of God do good signposting
• personal pet peeve: reading a ref in a poi; it's not strategic and (trust me) harms your ethos
• I will protect the flow against wildly outlandishly new things, but encourage you to call the POO (this is esp true in the LOR, I will tend to let things slide more in that speech)
• fine w tag teaming
• presumption flows neg unless there's a cp then presumption flows aff
• protected time is not a real thing

less short version (but tbh still p short)

Case:

• ❤️myself a good case debate, make sure to have nice terminilized impacts
• will prolly have a low threshold for things like PICs bad etc (which ig is theory, but you might wanna know for your CPs)

Theory:

• perfectly fine with theory, if you do run it please run it well.
• prolly will not vote for your RVI, but run it if you have a good warrant
• ❤️frivolous theory, always down for the funny ones
• I default of theory coming first, unless you give me a reason why is shouldn't

K's:

• I'm ok but K's but if your K is pretty confusing and the lit base is super dense, I probably won't understand it. I.e. I'll do my best to evaluate your K, but I cannot promise to be as awesome and smart as some of your other judges.
• Side note, please don't be super mean about your k and don't purposefully try to keep the debate inaccessible.

If you have any other questions about my preference, just ask, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Hello! My name is Kayla (she/her/hers),

Having competed in team debate on the HS level, parli and LD in college, and having judged for LD/parli/IEs/IPDA for middle school, high school, and college tournaments, I will enjoy most arguments you want to raise, so long as they are respectful. I believe that ethical communication happens when teams respect each other and don’t use their arguments to degrade each other. I am open to all types of argumentation but will drop teams for problematic rhetoric.

For HS:

I will vote on procedurals (including condo) and topicality. I prefer to see proven abuse, or at least a clear instance of potential abuse, for most theory arguments. Policy debate, or a K on the Aff or Neg is welcome. I am comfortable with speed, but am willing to vote on speed theory if the debate becomes inaccessible.

For College:

I would self-describe my style of judging as somewhere in between a "flow judge" and a "truth judge." While, in most instances, I will vote on the flow, if one team goes line-by-line and fails to address the thesis-level of the debate, I might break this norm. If the debate involves multiple conditional positions, I find cohesion in the round (slightly) less important: this makes the thesis of the debate less important than the line-by-line.

Theory is always an a priori issue to any other positions in the round. If you go for theory, collapse to theory.

I enjoy K debates and will be happy to hear them on either the Aff or Neg. I am also interested in your advantage/disadvantage debate, it’s whatever you think fits the round best or whatever you’re most comfortable with. I am less familiar (although somewhat familiar) with Lacan and Freud-based Ks, but I enjoy most other critical arguments and have a particular penchant for Foucault.

For speaker points, I will evaluate your content over the style in which it is presented. Speed is fine, but I could be persuaded to vote on a speed argument. Using language that is violent or degrades your opponents could also result in a reduction of speaker points.

Ask any questions in-round if you have more!

Hello!

My name is Natalia (she/they) and I am a debater at Campolindo Highschool

Upon the nature of judging, you can treat me as a parent judge but I am fine with theory (not so much with K's). My request is for REALLY CLEAR SIGNPOSTING and speaking clearly (even if you speak at the speed of light). Also, I like seeing impacts!

Please no sexism, transphobia, homophobia, racism, etc. (ALSO I'M REALLY SORRY IF I MISGENDER YOU ITS BEEN A PROBLEM ALL WEEK, CALL ME OUT ON IT)

Good luck and have fun! ;)

I am a parent judge with no prior experience in judging debate. I will look for logical arguments that are concise and well thought through. Please explain any debate jargon, and please do not talk too fast. Please do not run theory or a kritik.

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to zmoss@bishopodowd.org

Short Paradigm:

tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice

It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method and offense against their weighing method.

I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.

Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."

Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.

I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.

Long Paradigm:

I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.

Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.

Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.

Topicality

To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.

Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).

Isabella Perry (She/They) Please use my pronouns; straight-up refusal will get you dropped. If you have any questions before or after the round, email me isabella7perry@gmail.com or Dm on messenger at Isabella Perry.

Experience: former varsity Campolindo debate member, three years experience. Most familiar with K debate but run whatever you want.

If you have any questions about the jargon that I use feel free to ask and I will happily help you out with it.

If you include a reference to I will eat raw I will like you and give 30 speaks.

This first block is for JV parli:

If I can stress one thing and one thing only it is to weigh your impacts, if you go up there and say that people's quality of life is decreased but then the other team says they cause death how am I supposed to vote for either side. The only way I can vote for either side, in this case, is to either vote neg as it is a draw or to flip a coin. TBH you will most likely win the round if you impact weigh.

Second most important thing:

If you do not refute an argument I deem it to be true, if the neg goes up and says that the sky is purple and the aff doesn't refute it then in the context of this debate the sky is purple, you can and will lose the round by dropping points. As well most of the JV rounds that I see are lost and won by dropped points.

Signposting makes my job as a judge SO much easier. Signposting is clear labeling/separation of argument i.e "unk point 1, unk point, 2 moving onto link 1, link 2" and so on and so on

Also PLEASE run all of the tech arguments that you know how to run, I love watching an interesting tech round, if you can explain how we should launch all of the gold into the sun I'm all for it.

Now for the tech stuff:

TL:DR: By default, I will evaluate the round Theory>K>Case. Will judge as objectively on the flow as possible. Read whatever you want as long as it isn't violent. don't be a jerk; if you are violent, I will drop you and give minimum speaks without hesitation. I don't care about the presentation of your arguments. I care about the quality of them.

Philosophy: I want to minimize judge intervention as it allows for external biases to have a far greater effect on the round. You do you, don't be violent, and you will be fine.

Anything past this point will be going into depth on what is stated above and their implications on the round. If you would like to read Junes paradigm as I am literally using the same headers as them, as well our philosophies on debate are similar.

Links: I use links to find the probability of an impact, as well as the overall truth of your argument, Ex If a link is conceded, then it has a 100% probability.

Speaker points are just imaginary bonus points that some people care about a lot; if you win, you get max speaker points; if you lose, you get one less than max.

I have no preferences about the following: rejecting the resolution, conditionality/multi condo, 'cheater' CPs, PICs, Ks, etc. I will evaluate these arguments equally, but I will allow your opponents to read theory against you.

In order of most to least enjoyed, I prefer K's, then theory, then case/advantages/disadvantages debates. I hope to keep my personal preferences aside whenever I judge. However, they will always affect me to a degree.

Delivery/Speaks:

I'm comfortable with speed as long as you are somewhat clear and are not spreading at a college level, but I know speed can be used to skew people out of the debate space. If your opponent asks you to slow or clear, please listen to them. (I literally lost an elim round because of people not speaking clearly.)

Don't worry about "performing well" in front of me. As previously mentioned, I will not give speaks based on performance.

Counterplans:

Not much to say about your average counterplan; make sure that it is competitive; always explain your mutual exclusivity well, as well I rank the strength of competitions as: Functional>NetBenifits>textual

Not gonna lie; I love "abusive" counterplans, go for condo consult, go run ddev about launching all of our gold into the moon. However, I will evaluate MG theory just as any other shell, so don't be surprised if you get called out on it.

I default to evaluating perms as tests of competitions

Theory:

Theory is great. I have a low threshold for what counts as abuse on theory. This means I am very comfortable voting on 'frivolous' theory and potential abuse.

I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I will be down for reasonability if given a bright line and reasons to prefer it.

Drop the debater by default, but will drop the argument if you give me a reason why; also tell me which argument to drop if it's not obvious, ex must accept a poi.

I default to theory being a priori to the rest of the debate.

I have a high threshold for reasons why case impacts (advantages or disadvantages) should come before theory.

RVs:

NO RIV's by default, but I have a VERRY low threshold for RVI's at least in comparison to other judges; I have no problem giving a team the win off of an RVI.

Kritik:

K's are by far my favorite part of debate; I can't stress how much I enjoy K's.

I haven't had very much experience with anything besides material revolutionary theory. However, I am open to voting for Pomo k's or k's that I am not familiar with if they are well explained.

If it's relevant, the Ks I'm most familiar with are Cap k, maoism, imperialism, ableism and a little bit of D&G/Body without organs.

No opinion in round between, optimism vs. pessimism, micro vs. macro-political action, etc.

I evaluate the alt like a CP in reference to competition and the perm.

By default, I evaluate theory as being a priori to the K, But I have a low threshold for arguments for why the K comes first.

Other:

Presumption flows neg by default; I don't really care for side bias arguments as both sides are pretty equal, if not, then slightly favoring the neg.

I will protect the flow however call your own POO's, don't call excessively though, any more than 2-3 incorrect POO's and ill start to get annoyed. However, if you are correct call as many as you want, I will rule on the POO in round.

I Will vote for IVI's, but once again, you have to explain it well.

The LOR doesn't have to extend every word of the MO. I think the LOR can largely do whatever it wants to, as long as it's not new.

Please include me in the speech doc or email chain if there is one.

Senior @ Nueva.

I'm down to hear anything, that being said maybe don't read super tech-y stuff in novice, especially if everyone in the round is not super down (I guess like if plan or something is super abusive you can try to run something). I am tech > truth, happy to answer any specific questions you might have before/after the round. I do like theory thoooo.

Everyone gets 30s, I am happy to give you verbal feedback on speaking/strategy but I think the points don't actually matter in JV.