Last Update: January 7, 2022

I competed in various forms of debate for five years on the college level however, I primarily competed in NPDA and LD Debate. I competed for Moorpark College (more traditional debate) and Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley (Nat circuit tech debate). At the 2021 NPDA I got to Semis and NPTE I got fifth in season-long rankings and fifth at the NPTE itself. I am ecstatic to see the future generation of debaters compete as a judge with that being said let’s get onto my judging philosophy which is probably the only thing you care about and are reading this for.

TLDR: As the great, powerful, wise debater Brian Yang once said "Go Nuts!" to be a bit more specific my paradigm is heavily influenced by Trevor Greenan, Brian Yang, Tom Kadie, Jessica Jung, and Ryan Rashid so I would expect paradigm similar to them. In order of probably what I am probably best/most experienced judging Theory/Tricks/Larp/K 1, Phil 2 (just not as experienced although I did debate it a bit and learned from Phil debaters so I understand it and can judge it pretty competently) (Advice: For Parli Paradigm questions look to sections 1-4 for evidence debate gloss over section 1 real quick only a few things there matter then look to sections 2-5, for extra salt, info, and general advice include 6,7) bold/highlighted text is generally the more important stuff I would recommend looking at though the rest of it provides a lot of context and stuff so I would read everything there will in fact be a pop quiz... jkjkjkjkjk.... unless........

Table of Contents:

1. General Philosophy

2. Case Debate

3. Theory

4. Kritiks

5. Evidence Debate Specific

6. Contact Info

7. Uniqueness Rant... (no need to look to with regards to paradigm questions just tired of giving the same feedback lol)

My current views for debate, in general, are as follows:

1. General Philosophy:

A) Tech over Truth: Wtf is "Truth" honestly the fact that you vote on the flow shouldn't be an opinion you have it should be a requirement otherwise what is the point of having a judge other than to have some rando arbitrarily and most likely with prejudice decide on random claims it doesn't seem like a very fun event in that world but rather idk an event coated by some serious paternalism coded by all sorts of isms? I know I have def been screwed over before by judges that thought something was "true/untrue" when they were just wrong and describing something I did entire research papers on being like okkkk buddy...
B) Partner communication: I only flow what the recognized speaker says unless you have some sort of framework, performance, or theory justification that is won. Communicate as much or little as you want you do you.

C) Protecting the flow: I do try to protect the flow to the best of my ability. However, I would still recommend calling points of orders just in case I miss something.

D) Things that make me unhappy :( I reserve the right to drop anyone for being bigoted will cause me to drop the team given the real-world implications and harm that it creates.

E) Speaks: I have decided that speaks are probably disablist, sexist, racist, etc. particularly in debate events and as such I will give each team the highest possible speaks be it block 30s and 29.9 or descending by whatever the tournament allows. The exception is if your racist, sexist, antisemitic, disablist, transphobic, homophobic, or any of the phobics or antis or isms (come close to breaking this rule a couple of times although I haven't had to yet...). If I can’t give block scores I will give the winners higher speaks and the losers the lower ones descending.

F) Views on spreading: You do you I can flow. My partner Will White was probably one of the fastest debaters when going max speed so it's highly unlikely you can spread me out as Will could hit like 450WPM without cards and I could flow.

G) Shadow Extensions: I believe Shadow Extensions are new arguments. (A shadow extension is an argument dropped during the member speeches that magically reappears in the rebuttal speeches)

H) Extensions:

I. When extending an argument should it be untouched I am okay with a simple extend _____ there is no need to reexplain as long as your arguments related will not be new and only weighing in the rebuttal speeches. However, if you are planning to leverage it against another argument on the flow you need to explain how it applies.

II. If you are kicking something you do need to say "kick this" or "extend their we meet" or whatever "we're not going for it"

III. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE EXTEND YOUR VOTERS ON THEORY.

I) Cross-Applications in Rebuttals: I believe that cross applications through other sheets of paper are new arguments. For example, if you make an argument on theory and then in the rebuttal speeches apply it to case or K when it is only on theory in the flow and you don't say it applies to case or K that would be a new argument.

J) Words that you say when other people are speaking for lack of a better term: Slow and speed mean to slow down, Clear means to talk clearer not necessarily to slow down, Text means to pass the text, signpost means to say where you're at on the flow.

K) Written copies) Please give me written/typed copies of your advocacies/ROJ/ROB/Interps/counterinterps in case I miss something important. What you write down is the interp is what I will follow unless contested and told to do otherwise. I may ask for clarification after the speech and before the next speech before time starts for the exact wording.

L) Weighing) Absent weighing done for me by the debaters I default to Strength of link>magnitude>probability>timeframe.

2. Case Debate:

A) Affirmative:

I. Policy:

a. Have a plan text and preferably advantages. Other than that it is pretty much up to you and your opponent. I do enjoy a good Heg, econ, and Uniqueness solves the case debate for Tix if you can't think of anything...

b. Advantages: Preferably in the formats of Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, then Impacts or Uniqueness, Links, Impacts. Make sure your uniqueness is going in the right direction, explain your links, and terminalize your impacts. I would love it if you would give me clear links not just plan passes and war, explain how you get to war. Don’t just say death and expect me to do the work for you. If you say gut check as a wise man once told me “I will gut check everything and you may not like that.”

II. Value: Should have a criteria and contentions. You don't need a Value Criteria in addition to your regular one but if you want to provide one strategically that is up to you. Preferably for both Contentions and Countercontentions on the Negative, the structure I usually ran was H.I.S. (Harms, Impact, Solvency) with harms being the harms of the opposing value, Impacts being the impacts of that, and Solvency being the solvency for using your value but I understand there are many different structures and not every value round is capable of having that clear of a structure so how you run it is up to you.

III. Fact: You should have a criteria and contentions. Your contentions should preferably have impacts and not just be statements otherwise it is very hard to weigh the debate.

B) Negative:

I. DAs: refer to section 2.a.I.b. on advantages.

II. Counterplans: some of my favorite debates are plan CP debates having originally been coached by one of the “inventors” of the CP. I’ll vote on any type of perm textual, functional, one with net benefits, severance, intrinsic, timeline, etc. if it’s won. I default to perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. Also going for Severance and going for your aff is not a double turn just two independent win conditions unless the opposing team makes/wins an arg that it is. If a perm hasn't been argued as either a test of competition or advocacy come the 2AR my default is locked and I will consider it a test of competition and any argument as to the contrary as new.

III. Presumption: I default to presumption flows Neg unless the neg runs an advocacy/Alt/CP in which case it flips AFF absent a framework argument that is argued that it is negative. If you’re condo and kick it I default to it flips back to the neg but am open to arguments that it stays aff. Side note: I default permissibility affirms

IV: Offense V Defense: if you clearly articulate how it is terminal defense and presumption is still negative ground I will vote on it. Generally, I vote along a very heavy offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

V: Condo V Uncondo: Default to all plans are condo unless the status is asked and they say not condo. IDC how you run it up to you. Also like the great Amanda Miskell says “Dispo is just Condo in a suit” jkjkjkjk even though it isn't tbh most of the same standards level offense will be triggered on a theory position maybe you get some additional education offense depending on conditions but it seems minimal to me but meh whatever you do you. I don't care one way or another on condo will vote on condo bad (if won) as much as I will vote for infinite condo good (if won) fun math proof for infinite condo here ( I don't think it's fully accurate but its def fun/funny lol): https://debatedrills.com/en/blog/defense-infinite-conditionality/ .

VI: Judge Kick: I don't default to judge kicking the CP but if you win that I should judge kick that's fine. I also think that responses to judge kicking coming out of the PMR in response to new MO framing should be to drop the argument not drop the debater.

3. Theory:

A) Structure: It should preferably have an Interp, Violation, Standards, and Voters. Unless it is an IVI, RVI, paragraph theory all of which I will vote for.

I. Interpretation:

a. No preference for or against any type of Theory run whatever you and friv theory = FUN. Condo bad, no neg fiat, Ks Bad, AFC, Spec, Topicality, Trichot, tropicality, neg gets to split the block, etc. (although I will likely be heavily biased against theory that calls out someone's personal appearance and/or the way they dress... to the point I most likely will intervene and not vote for it but I haven't fully decided on that yet)

II. Violation: probably should clearly articulate the violation even if so blatantly obvious and not just they violate but it can be quick if it’s very clear like if you run F-Spec, just say “they didn’t specify the funding mechanism in the PMC” or something like that.

III. Standards:

a. Your standards should provide clear links to each voter that they work in conjunction with Fairness, Education and/or accessibility and work as reasons to prefer your theory sheet. Ideally, they should be contextualized to the round/interp rather than just general descriptions of the standard.

IV: Voters

a. To vote on theory I need clear explained voters don’t just say Apriori, fairness, and education and expect me to vote on them you need to terminalize those voters and what they mean. For example, with education you could say that education is the reason debate exists and without education, nobody would do debate and it collapses or for fairness say that if the round is unfair we cant evaluate arguments to tell if they're true. Or on fairness, we cant test their arguments/methods/ it skews eval etc.

b. For theory, I have no preference for reasonability vs. competing interpretations and will vote on how you tell me to vote. though I will say I have no idea what reasonability means until you provide some sort of bright line like winning all the Counterstandards and standards or something I dunno your argument you figure out what it will be and without a brightline, I just go back to competing interps

c. I default to drop the team, competing interps, no RVIs, Fairness>education (tho ig it would depend on the impact justifications under this model I am assuming skews eval/truth testing as your fairness impact), Text>Spirit, Pragmatics>Semantics.

d. Abuse: I default to potential abuse is sufficient as CInterps would cause me to evaluate under a risk of offense paradigm comparing the two interps not necessarily what happened in a given round. Unless a very good argument for articulated abuse is given most likely with some sort of reasonability framework being won.

e. A “we meet” that is won is a no link to a theory shell even under competing interpretations unless argued otherwise and very clearly won in the debate. While you can weigh the risk of offense on some level of the we meet if they only meet part of your interp i.e. they don't fully violate like a no link on one of the potential scenarios on a DA. To achieve terminal defense the we meet would likely have to fully meet the interp, some framing claim as to why a partial meeting is sufficient to not evaluate the sheet, and/or the we meet is generated via an interp flaw which means they can't solve their offense given they wrote they're interp bad allowing you to meet.

B) IVIs/RVIs/paragraph theory/Kritikal Turns: I will vote on them if you win them and have clear links and reasons why I should vote on them, tell me how to vote on them and framing/sequencing. I will vote on an RVI but I probably have a slight bias against them. I default to no RVIs but if you win the RVI framing I will vote on it. Also, this is something I have noticed in parli it seems what an RVI is has gotten lost in translation from Nat Circuit LD to Parli, the way I understand it is how it is understood in nat circuit LD i.e. it is a framing claim with regards question of the directionality of offense if you win that something is an RVI you win that offense is Bidirectional, not Unidirectional as under a no RVI theory on framework so saying we get an RVI is sufficient to get an RVI but not sufficient to win an RVI as to win an RVI begs the question of whether you won the theory sheet in itself (when judges vote for bidirectional offense on a K they are voting for an RVI shhhh... don't tell them), if you do and you win you get an RVI and that theory is the highest layer you would then trigger a win condition most likely. The way they've become translated for the most part in parli is just IVIs saying theory is bad not RVIs.

4. Kritiks: Run whatever you want (yes, I know that these examples don't fit cleanly into each category and can fit into several just giving examples) be it more sociological like Cap, Set Col, antiBlackness, Psychoanalysis like Lacan (sidenote: Nietzsche Stan so like the implications of that are generally not the biggest Lacan/psychoanalysis fan in general though I will vote for it just not enjoy myself), or POMO like Nietzsche, Baudrillard, DNG, "eastern" philosophy (probably my fave tbh) like Taoism or Buddhism, your Deont 1AC/NC, and ofc your nailbomb 1AC, IDC I vote on the flow. Don't assume I know your lit even though I know a pretty big lit base and so your K should be clearly explained preferably. As for literature that I am particularly familiar with I mostly ran Nietzsche, Buddhism, Disablism, Anthro, Cap/Racial Cap, Set Col, and Orientalism. However, I am heavily biased against nazi literature please don't run it like Schmitt or Heidegger because ya know... I had family subjected to the Holocaust... K-Affs are fun I def ran them a lot but I probably err slightly towards FWT maybe 55/45 should the best arguments be made although (the best args are rarely/almost never made) so I actually end up voting at about 50/50 or edging slightly in favor of K-AFFs.

II Framework:

A. ROB/ROJ: I think that both are really just thesis claims for your framework and in themselves not necessarily arguments. i.e. a role of the justification for existence absent framework arguments and no function as to what it means and should you make an argument about framework regardless of whether you say the role Role of the ballot/Judge is ___ the function of how I evaluate the round stays the same so in the end whether you say an explicit role of the ballot text or not the end result is the same, therefore it follows that a ROB/J cannot be more than a thesis claim because it doesn't change the outcome of the round by default absent some sort of internal justification but then that begs what it means via the framework arguments rendering the whole thing circular leading back to the same place that it is in fact a thesis claim.

B. Framing: Your framework should preferably offer some explanation on how impacts should be evaluated in relation to other impacts and what should type of evaluation comes first, what methods ought be prioritized etc.

C. I default to epistemic modesty over confidence on frameouts and impact defense. That means without any in-depth explanation, I'll evaluate your frameout as a reason why your impacts are more probable than your opponents, and why your opponents have a lower probability of solving their impacts. If you want me to evaluate your frameout as terminal defense, or a reason the k is sequentially a prior question to the aff, you need to do the technical extensions of why that is necessarily the case. I also default to epistemic modesty when it comes to impact defense that means absent an explicit argument as to why that defense is terminal I will only evaluate it as mitigatory. When it comes to epistemic skew claims I functionally default to confidence as I believe they create new layers within the debate. Finally, stating that X is terminal defense if the claim is uncontested will cause me with regards to that particular impact to view that as terminal defense regardless of whether it is coherent as the implication will not have been contested however, if something is not explicitly stated to be terminal defense and there is not an explicit claim saying it is such or flipping my paradigm then I will view any defense as mitigatory as described.

C. MISC.

1. Will vote on Skep triggers if they are terminalized and explained and I think tricks belong in parli but IG that's up for debate tho.

2. I default to theory is Apriori however, I will vote on K before T if the argument is made/won. Or they are on the same level if arg is made/won.

3. I have no idea what "vote for the best/better debater" means.

4. Not as experienced with Phil tho I do enjoy it and have def learned a lot from former Phil debaters and understand a decent amount of it.

5. Role of the ballots/Judges are really just thesis claims for framework arguments imo from what I have seen though i.g. if you want it to be more binding then that you need to probably make that argument although I will probably all things being equal be more receptive to the claim that its a thesis claim.

III. Impacts:

a. Have them and terminalize them. As stated above don't just say nuclear war or poverty and expect me to do the work for you.

b. full disclosure I probably find the proximal impacts bad for debate highly persuasive. Not to say that I won't vote for proximal impacts if they're won on the flow (I def ran them occasionally when I did debate) and that you've won that they're good but due to personal experiences and the ways I have seen them utilized I have a bias against them. I also think there's a distinction between proximal impacts that occurred in the debate round i.e. someone did something violent in which case I think those proximal impacts are probably persuasive versus proximal impacts brought into the round that your advocacy or alt solves for you or other debaters in-round which is where I find my bias against proximal impacts probably comes in.

IV Alt/Advocacy:

a. Preferably have one and tell me which way I should vote unless its part of your FW, solvency, performance, or something I guess that you don't need one.

b. If it has a really complex idea and philosophy explain what the terms mean either under your alt/advocacy or in your solvency ideally.

V Solvency:

a. You should have it and clearly explain how it solves the impacts you have provided at a minimum. Don't just say we solve you should state the mechanism and way in which you solve.

VI: Perm: Refer to 2, B), II. the perm section under counter plans.

5. Evidence Debate specific:

A) Carded evidence: it is very important for Evidence debate but you must also make arguments not just cite sources. Analytics theoretically can beat cited cards if you do the better debating. Also please don’t get into your source is bad arguments unless they cite the most biased source like Breitbart (obviously evidence comparison is encouraged though) I more so mean the "wahhhh no u, debates) for the evidence chain please send to Joshua.alpert (AT) berkeley.edu

B) Power-tagging/cutting: don't... Please Don’t... I’m very probably pretty receptive to some sort of theory shell against it if it is won... please don’t lose it if you do run it or I will be sad. A drop the argument claim made by the team calling it out at the very least probably has a good chance of winning in front of me.

C) No clipping!!! this shouldn't have to be said but apparently, it does.

6. If you have any further questions feel free to ask me before or after the round or if you have questions about a round I judged feel free to email me or send me a Facebook message.

7. My Uniqueness rant.... feels like half the time I am judging HS rounds with two linear impacts pitted against each other and like some rough uniqueness so I am gonna put a RQ rant on how uniqueness works so I don't have to keep repeating myself

a. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link: I.e. if the uniqueness is headed in one direction things bad the link should be things get better or vice versa on a DA. This means that thumpers/uniqueness overwhelms the links arguments aren't particularly responsive more so mitigatory as there is still only a risk things get worse as such in order to really control the link debate its ideal you control the uniqueness debate as well. (side note: generally case turns also need uniqueness too otherwise they're pretty linear which makes it easier for the opposing team to handwave away with "try or die".

b. Uniqueness positive v negative v flux: Uniqueness in terms of directionality follows one of three types Positive v. negative v flux Positive uniqueness indicates the squo is headed in the right direction (squo good) this is the uniqueness you generally want on a DA, negative would indicate the squo is bad and is what you want on an advantage, and in flux would indicate that it could head either direction it is dependent on a "singular action" it can go in either an AD or DA and generally, requires strong control of the Link/Internal Link debate while strategic in some instances it is generally high-risk high reward.

c. Predictive v Descriptive Uniqueness: Uniqueness can either be predictive or descriptive what I mean is uniqueness can either state what is happening "right now" or in the "past" (descriptive) or it can be predictive describing what is expected to happen in the future look to an econ debate descriptive uniqueness would state that unemployment is at an all-time high with X unemployment and the investor confidence is low at ___ versus predictive would be unemployment is expected to drop ____ because of ___ and investor confidence is headed towards a free fall as X bubble bursts.

d. Uniqueness as a spot for internal links: uniqueness can be used as a spot to place internal links instead of having separate internal links sections you can embed that X type of thing is the internal link i.e. you can have a section that says soft power is the internal link to Heg or investor confidence key to Heg to save you some time from having to flesh out a whole separate internal link section.

e. Brink Scenarios: Please for the love of god have brink and/or flashpoint scenarios in your uniqueness i.e. some event or location that is heading in the wrong/right direction think if you have a war with Russia scenario isolate someplace like the Baltics, arctic, cyberspace, etc. rather than some vague place and isolate why now is key and what is going to happen if we don't do this otherwise it kind of makes your uniqueness linear and a nightmare to evaluate and of course to leverage tbh.

F: Non-Case debate

I K's: The alternative generates uniqueness in a K debate: i.e. all the framing, links, and impacts are generally nonunique until you have created a way to solve them via your advocacy/alt.

II: Theory: Your interp/counterinterp is what generates your uniqueness in a case debate in a similar fashion to how the alt does as you have established an "advocacy/rule" for an interpretation of how debate should functions in order to resolve impacts isolated in the same way that if the alt on a K has terminal defense to resolving its offense making it nonunique and thus not a reason to vote against the AFF it means that should an interp have terminal defense on it it is not a reason to vote down the opposing team as its offense can't be resolved, it also means that absent a counterinterp you don't meet or a we meet/interp flaw that even if you have offense of why the interp is bad you have no way to resolve that offense so the interp is automatically preferable (unless you've impact turned/framed it out ofc).

e. Example/outline:
Advantage Heg:
uniqueness:
1. heg is low right now because ___ (this should be related to the type of power on uniqueness 2 and the location on 3 otherwise you will thump your own offense)
2. __ type of Power is key to Heg
3. ___ Flashpoint is Key to ___ type of power and something bad is happening there rn

A little about me…

She/Her

I’ve been involved in debate for the last 5ish years (four in high school, one in college). I did LD in high school and debated for a year on the parliamentary debate team at Berkeley in NPDA/NPTE open parli, mostly running ks and k affs (this girl loves queer theory).

TL;DR:

tech > truth (but please don’t make me vote on this)

I will vote on anything as long as it’s not oppressive/violent - so k affs, theory, topicality, ks, literally anything. Please make the round interesting and debate how you wanna debate! That said, if you love a good topical debate I’m totally down for that too. Win your arguments on the flow, weigh them concretely, and I’ll be happy to vote you up. Don’t worry about an argument being frivolous as long as it’s not just a hail mary (weigh it properly and I’ll vote on it). Please, please, please don’t just say “perm do both” etc. Give me a reason why the perm is better and them against the other team’s arguments. Don’t feel like you have to perform. I want you to have the debate that you want to have and that is valuable for you.

Also, please do not misgender your opponents.

**I’ve been out of debate for about a year, so I can still follow most spreading but if you are just unintelligible I will ask you to slow/clear. SIGNPOST. Please listen to me or I will be sad.

————————————————————————————————————————————

Case:

- I love a good turn.

- Please make advantages/disadvantages well-warranted and clear. I default to preferring two clear and specific disads to four.

- I default to durable fiat.

CPs:

- I love advantage CPs (as long as they are well structured and the advantage is weighed against the aff)!

- I default to perms as tests of competition unless you tell me why.

- I don’t love contextual competition :/

Ks:

- I am relatively well versed in K lit, but that DOES NOT mean that I’ll automatically understand all your warrants so you don’t have to explain them. I like this lit and I want the debate to happen on its substance, not because your opponents don’t understand your warrants because they are blippy and confusing. This will make me sad. I am most familiar with Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, and a lot of queer theory so do with that what you will.

- If you choose to run theory against a team rejecting the resolution, know that I do generally tend to lean towards the impacts of the K rather than the impact of the theory. That said, I would love to see a good theory debate as long as you explain what you mean by fairness and education very clearly. I would prefer not to vote off of a fairness argument that is dropped but never weighed/explained.

- When I was debating, we mostly ran Ks and K affs so don’t be afraid to run these arguments in front of me.

- I will default to evaluating the alt as a CP if you don’t give me a reason not to.

- Please, please, please don’t just say “perm do the alt and the CP” etc. Give me a reason why the perm is better and them against the other team’s arguments.

- I love K affs. That said, I will definitely not automatically vote up a team for running this. I would LOVE to see a thorough, precise framework T debate… just make sure you give me a reason why education and fairness are more important than the impacts of the K

- Please don’t just run a reject alt…it makes the debate less interesting.

- I have a high standard for a framework T violation. You cannot just say “a k aff is unfair because we couldn’t prepare for it”. You must have a well-warranted, formatted T shell that picks apart how a K aff makes the debate unfair. I will lean towards the impacts of the k aff outweighing the standards. That said, it is very possible to win FWT against a k aff (and I would love to see you do it)! I just need a very clear, substantive FWT argument.

Theory:

- I ran a lot of theory when I was debating, so my threshold for “frivolous theory” is very low. This means that I default towards potential abuse v. proven abuse. I’m going to vote on the best norms for debate, and I think that potential abuse captures this better than proven abuse. I love a good theory debate, but I prefer that the responses and extensions are substantial and precise.

- I’ll pretty much vote on anything if it is well warranted.

- Theory should be responded to with a counter interp/counter standards and a “we meet” when possible.

- Weigh your standards. I will be skeptical if you just say “they didn’t respond to x standard” and leave it at that.

- I am skeptical of new theory in the PMR.

- I default to dropping the debater over dropping the argument. If you want me to just drop the argument, tell me why and weigh it.

- I default to theory being a priori to the rest of the debate. If you don’t want me to evaluate it this way, I will be skeptical unless your argument is well warranted and weighed.

- Don’t assume that fairness and education are automatically voters. You must tell me why they are voters in the specific context of the shell and the violation in the round. I tend to lean towards the idea that education and fairness as voters only benefit some debaters, so I will be skeptical if you don’t explain it to me).

Speaks:

- I am very skeptical of speaks as a concept. I believe (and have experienced) that speaks usually reflect race, gender, and sexuality biases more than they reflect in round “performance”.

- I will use speaker points to reward strategic decisions and penalize disrespectful behavior. The winning team should expect 29.0-29.5 and the losing team should expect 28-28.5.

Other:

- Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read:https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- Ask any questions before round. My old debate partner and beautiful human being June Dense has heavily influenced my debate philosophy. Look to her paradigm for more information on what I’m about.

<3

Hello reader, my name is Joel Brown (he/him/his)!

I competed in Policy and Parli on a very lay circuit in high school, and then I competed in Parli and LD in college at Chabot College and at the University of the Pacific. I was also an assistant Parli coach at Washington High School for a year. Altogether, I have a fair amount of experience with policy-style debate.

I try to be impartial about what arguments or strategies you choose to deploy in the round, but I do care that you deploy them well - provide warrants for your arguments, and provide clear decision calculus in the rebuttals. Specifically, don't just link your arguments to x impact, there needs to be an explicit weighing of the impacts in the round.

I'm able to keep up with spreading for the most part, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed as this often impacts your argument quality and consequently your speaker points too.

I'm game for theory debate, but I expect a clear abuse story outlined in the standards that relate to your impacts in the context of the round. I'm not predisposed to either proven or potential abuse threshold, as both have real impacts - hash out the threshold question in the round and then explain your abuse story from there.

Disad/Counterplan debates are also a great option - go with whatever you think fits the round best or what you're most comfortable with. All counterplans MUST be functionally mutually exclusive with the plan or else the perm is terminal defense that I will vote on as the easiest out in the round.

I also think case debate has become something of a lost art, meaning that you can win terminal defense in front of me so long as you frame it correctly and pair it with turns. When it comes to case debate, I won't automatically vote on a risk of offense if that offense is predicated on a claim with missing/dubious warrants.

I frequently ran kritiks as a competitor and I enjoy judging rounds where critical arguments are made on either side, but that doesn't mean I automatically know the lit base you're citing inside and out - my flow benefits from 1) slowing down when introducing your thesis and/or framework at the top 2) presenting a well-developed link story that indicts the specific actions of your opponents case 3) explaining how your alt solves the K per the framework. I am most familiar with critical arguments pertaining to capitalism, race, gender, colonialism, biopower, and the environment. I am less well-versed in other literature, but I can usually track a well-explained and cohesive thesis for the most part.

Round vision is key to wining in front of me - PLEASE COLLAPSE IN THE BLOCK/PMR OR ELSE IT BECOMES OBJECTIVELY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU. It is both easier and more compelling for me to vote for the team that identifies and collapses to a few points of key offense than for the team that keeps doing line-by-line in the rebuttals without providing coherent impact calculus.

Feel free to ask any further questions before the round!

(he/him/his)

I did traditional LD for four years on the local circuit while I was in high school. I have very little personal experience with progressive debate, but know the basics.

Framework debates are my favorite; however, I will consider any argument you give me, just make it make sense.This means that if you're presenting theory, a K, or anything super technical, you need to explain it to me in a way I can understand if you want me to evaluate it seriously. You are more than welcome to use any of these strats/arguments so long as you can present the argument clearly. If you can do that, it shows how well you're acquainted with the lit (which looks good to me).

Voters are a MUST!! if you don't tell me how to weigh the round, I'm going to default to Phil/Framework.

Signposting is incredibly important, I need to know where you are if I'm going to flow your arguments.

I can handle speed, but dislike spreading. Speaks are going to be high for both debaters unless someone starts acting unethically/problematically.

Treat your opponent with respect, make sure everyone's on the same page, and have a good time.

Put me on the email chain

ccarr@oxy.edu

No longer active in debate. Please refer to Raffi Piliero for all thoughts, comments, questions, and concerns.

Hello all, my name is Ashlie.

I make my decision based on the speaker who best: formulated logical arguments, extended their arguments, and responded to their opponent's arguments. The language used in the round should be comprehensible. Make sure to define key terms. I prefer clarity over speed, if I don't understand what you are saying because of how fast you are speaking, that means I am not writing it down.

During cross-examination, I am aware there will be clash and I expect respect amongst each other. My decision on who wins the round is on the speaker whomade the best arguments, not the most aggressive or loudest speaker.

Please time yourselves. I will be taking time and notify you when time is up, but timing yourself is a great skill as you can determine how much time you have left.Be mindful of the time, if your time is up. I will allow you to finish your last sentence but do not continue.

All in all, I am excited to judge your round!

Remember to be clear and state uniqueness, solvency, and impact of the policy/resolution. Take a deep breathe and show me all the hard work you have put in.

speed is fine as long as you make an email chain/speech drop - email is obinnadennar@gmail.com

im fine with all types of debate. i love critical arguments/case positions that engage with various types of philosophy. k debate is my favorite. cool with everything else.

one note on theory: i do not like frivolous theory (i.e. down my opponent since they are wearing socks - yes, i have seen this shell). if your opponent gets up in the next speech and says this is stupid and don't pay attention to it. i will discard it and i will not see it as a voting issues. that being said, if there is actual abuse in the round, theory is not only fine but welcomed. competing interps over reasonability.

please feel free to ask any questions before the round. ill be more than happy to answer them

she/her

Experience: I've been involved in debate for 10 years. Four years of National Circuit and Local Circuit High School LD at Chatfield Senior; four years of College NPDA/NPTE Open Parli for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley; three years of coaching experience for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley and Campolindo High School.

TL;DR: The short version is that I strive to evaluate the round as technically and objectively as possible. Read whatever arguments you want (provided they are not rhetorically violent), win them on the flow, and don't be oppressive/violent. Ks and k affs are great, theory is great, CPs are great, disads are great, case affs are great. Never worry about me auto-rejecting an argument because it's 'blippy' or 'frivolous', just make sure it's sufficiently weighed.

______________________________________________________________

Long version: The following details apply to both parli and LD, and if there's a paradigmatic difference between the two events, I will make note of it.

Philosophy: The principle that guides my judge philosophy is that judge intervention, while inevitable to some degree, is generally bad and should be minimized whenever possible. Paradigms that welcome judge intervention open the door for judges to make decisions (sometimes subconsciously; sometimes explicitly) on arbitrary criteria like presentation and rhetorical appeal. Evaluation of these criteria frequently comes down to race and gender, as well as being unfair and uneducational to the debaters in the round, so it should be avoided as much as possible. I do believe there can be instances of judges intervening in rounds for good, but on whole, as a general model for how debate ought to operate, I think judge intervention does more harm than good.

Three immediate implications of this:

[1] I default to strength of link to determine the truth value of arguments, warrants, empirics, etc. That means I don't care how "blippy" an argument seems, only whether it is contested; if an argument is conceded, then it has 100% strength of link and therefore is true. I will not intervene on the truth value of arguments, warrants, and empirics, for the reasons explained above (intervening on whether arguments are "true" sets a bad precedent about what the role of the judge is in debate rounds), and because I don't trust myself to know enough about the world to be able to verify the minutia of your arguments.

[2] I generally use paradigms that prioritize 'tech' over 'truth.' To this day, I am still confused about what 'truth' means as the opposite of 'tech.' How does the judge evaluate a round "truthfully"? Does that just mean the judge intervenes on the truth value of arguments (see point 1)? How does the competitive nature of debate factor in to 'truth' paradigms? If there are some arguments that are not open to debate ('true' arguments), wouldn't the more 'true' side have a massive advantage over the other? As a result, I think tech debate paradigms are more fair and educational, so I default to them.

[3] I use speaker points to reward good strategic calls and execution, rather than performance or rhetorical appeal. I don't like evaluating elements of debaters' in-round performances, such as persuasion, affect, rhetoric, speaking style, etc (again for the reasons above). However, if you are rhetorically violent in round, your speaks will be far lower.

All of the other details of my paradigm stem from these three points.

General:

- I have no preferences about the following: rejecting the resolution, conditionality/multicondo, 'cheater' CPs, PICs, Ks, 'frivolous' theory, etc. I am more than happy to evaluate these strats, but I think your opponents get to at least try to read theory in response.

- Personally, in order of most to least enjoyed, I prefer Ks, then theory, then case/advantages/disadvantages debates. However, my preferences will never factor into my decision, and I am more than comfortable evaluating any of these types of arguments.

Delivery/Speaks:

- I'm very comfortable with speed, but I know it can be a barrier to teams as well. I will default to evaluating speed but if your opponent asks your to slow or clear, please listen to them. I also don't think tech debate is intrinsically tied to speed; it's possible to have a technical debate that is not fast if speed is a barrier to teams. This means a) tech is not a reason why speed is good, and b) speed is not a reason why tech is bad or inaccessible.

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

- I will say clear as much as I need and I won't penalize speaks for clarity. I use speaks to reward good strategic calls, execution, and well-written files.

- I will not lower your speaks for calling points of order/information, so call away!

Policy/Case stuff:

- I default to believing in durable fiat.

- I default to evaluating your advantages through net benefits and util/some other form of consequentialism unless you specify otherwise.

- Specificity is good! I would much rather vote on your super specific investment bubble disad than your generic government spending disad.

Counterplans:

- I like CPs, especially well-constructed/creative advantage CPs.

- From the general section: I have no disposition for or against condo of 'cheater' CPs. Feel free to read them, but assume your opponents get to try reading theory about them.

- I default to evaluating perms as tests of competitions, but I will evaluate them as advocacies if you give me a reason why.

- I prefer arguments about functional competition and competition through net benefits to arguments about textual competition.

- I default to no judge kick, but I will evaluate it if you make the arguments.

Theory:

- I love theory :)

- I default to potential abuse over proven abuse, but feel free to do weighing between the two in round.

- I have a relatively low threshold for what counts as abuse on theory. Since I default to potential abuse, I vote for the better norm for debate between the interp and the counter interp. This means I am very comfortable voting on 'frivolous' theory and potential abuse.

- I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I think it's hard to evaluate reasonability without a brightline for what is considered to be 'reasonable.' I also don't know how to decide what is reasonable without being interventionist (see the judge intervention section).

- I default to dropping the team on theory, but I have no disposition between dropping the team or the argument.

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

- I default to fairness and education not being voters. This means you have to explicitly read fairness and education as voters in order for me to vote on theory; I will not "assume" they are there.

- I have an extremely high threshold for 2AR/PMR theory.

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

- I default to no RVIs. That means you have to make the argument that theory is a reverse voting issue, I won't just assume that it is. However, I love RVIs and think they're underutilized right now in parli.

Kritiks:

- I love Ks and K affs. I see myself as primarily a K coach, judge, and former debater.

- I have a good understanding of most foundational critical theory, so don't be afraid of reading your arguments in front of me. Read your pomo nonsense; read your more structuralist positions.

- I care a lot about the quality of Ks. I really love Ks that are dense, well-written, and demonstrate a clear understanding and commitment to the lit base from which they're pulled. I don't love Ks that are nothing more than an assemblage of arguments you think are strategic. Use file writing as an opportunity to show me that you've done your homework. Obviously I won't hack against a K I think is poorly written or anything, I'll vote on the flow, but I might decrease your speaks if I think your K is particularly bad.

- As a debater, I tended to reject the resolution more than I defend it, but I am perfectly happy evaluating rounds either way. From above: I think you're probably able to reject the resolution, but your opponents probably get to try reading theory against it. For what it's worth, all else held equal, I think I probably err towards the kritik on the question of weighing k impacts vs fairness and education (55-45), but I think the reason why is because teams frequently fail to explain why concepts like 'fairness' and 'education' matter in the context of the framework/impacts of the K, thus losing if the aff frames out the interp. If you can read framework and with this debate, you will probably win my ballot.

- I default to epistemic modesty over confidence. This means without any in-depth explanation, I'll evaluate your frameout as a reason why your impacts are more probable than your opponents, and why your opponents have a lower probability of solving their impacts. If you want me to evaluate your frameout as terminal defense, or a reason the k is sequentially a prior question to the aff, you need to do the technical extensions of why that is necessarily the case.

- I evaluate the alt like a CP in reference to competition and the perm; if I should evaluate the alt as more of a performance instead, please let me know and explain what this means in the context of the round.

- I don't love reject alts. I'd prefer your alt to be specific, concrete, and actionable. This is probably my biggest K pet peeve.

- I default to theory being a priori to the K, but I'm extremely sympathetic to arguments that the K should come first for a litany of reasons.

Other:

-Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- I default to presumption flowing neg unless the neg reads (and goes for) an advocacy other than the status quo, but I want this to be debated out in the round.

- I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as "contradictory" arguments; or at least, I think conditionality probably resolves a large degree of contradictions. So, I'm sympathetic to the argument that contradictions don't matter if you kick out of one half of the contradiction. However, if you're uncondo, you do need to be careful not to double turn yourself (for example, by reading an uncondo cap K and an econ DA).

- I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it's always better to call points of order just to be safe. There's always a chance I misevaluate whether an argument is new or not, so play it safe and point it out to me. I won't lower speaks or anything for calling points of order, so there's no perceptual risk.

- I will vote on IVIs, but to be transparent I'm not the biggest fan if they're read frivolously. Specificity is necessary here. If you do go for an IVI, you need to do the technical work of explaining why this piece of offense functions independently of the rest of the flow. Absent some justification, I will evaluate IVIs as a piece of offense on the layer it was read. If you want me to evaluate it as an a priori voting issue, I need framing that justifies this. This isn't to say that I won't evaluate IVIs, but it means that you need to do the work of explaining why it's a priori.

- (Parli) 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. The LOR can never really lose the round, but it definitely can win it.

- (LD) Please include me in the speech doc or email chain if there is one.

- If you have other questions I haven't answered, please ask me before the round!

Update for ToC 2023

I want to be impressed by your debating.

1. I am more distanced from the community now, so wow me with the new meta and some innovation or just go for heg. I will struggle a bit with speed and I may not resolve complicated layering debates in predictable ways, particularly on positions I am unfamiliar with. I tend to find ballots on fairness.

2. Since I care less about competition and more about pedagogy, I'm less inclined to vote for frivolous positions in close debates. I will not intervene against your new tricks, but beware my wrath on your speaks.

3. Let your timer ring in NSDA campus if your opponent is speaking over time. There are too many weird, untimed speeches happening online to not be clear about this.

4. If there are technical, "West Coast" debaters that are deliberately making debate less accessible, I am open to voting on arguments that this specific behavior is bad and ought to be punished. However, I will not vote on arguments that say that all arguments of a certain kind are bad. If your strategy is to complain that a position is prima facie inaccessible, you should strike me.

Argument content and speed seem to be the two aspects of debate that people find inaccessible. I caution any team reading arguments about the accessibility of debate:

First, genuine attempts to engage are a necessary condition to win that a position is inaccessible. For example, if the 1NC argues that the 1AC is too fast and therefore inaccessible, I would expect that the negative littered the 1AC with POIs asking for clarification. The optimal scenario for accessibility is one in which requests for certain practices are made before the round begins, ideally before prep.

Second, a viable alternative vision of debate, this round, and the ballot is necessary. What should debate look like? How does the ballot affect it? Do I completely abandon the burden of rejoinder or apply a different standard? An argument about accessibility should answer all of these questions. If you don't provide an alternative to the burden of rejoinder, I'll likely vote on conceded responses to speed bad or cross-applications of critical arguments against K's bad, because those are common arguments that you tend to drop. That will be difficult for you, but you have been forewarned.

Third, realize that inaccessibility is not solved by excluding certain positions or practices. Mandating debaters speak below a certain rate or banning critical positions is not liberatory - it's antithetical to liberation for some, and a bit authoritarian for my taste. You are reading a position to win the round just like everyone else. That's cool, but do not pretend/argue that speed is the worst form of exclusivity and that a ballot for you would solve everything.

TL;DR

Move fast and break things. You do you, unless you avoid line-by-line, give meaningless overviews, or drop arguments. Don’t do that. Do some argument resolution. Adapt to your opponents and think strategically before the speech/round/tournament.

Arguments require warrants. Tech >>>>>>>>>> Truth. Good framing makes voting simpler. I’m a link person more than a uniqueness person. K affs are fine, but I like fw. I enjoy direct, substantive clash. Theory is fine.

Background

he/him/his; Bellarmine College Prep ‘19, Georgetown ‘23; I like economics; debated at Bell, Notre Dame, and MVLA; coached at MVLA; coached Evergreen MS.

In high school, I read politics, heg, and long, conditional 1NCs. I went to one college tournament and read a queer temporality performance aff, framework, cap, and theory (and case!).

My resting face can be frowning or stern. Don’t take it badly - I’m just thinking.

Ballot

I will intervene on speech times, giving at most one win, that I only flow what the designated speaker says, and that structural violence in debate is real. If necessary, give content/trigger warnings before the round/speech. Deliberate misgendering along with anything else morally abhorrent is an auto-loss.

Claims require warrants. Pointing out that an argument lacks a warrant is sufficient for terminal defense. Empirics > analytics > testimonies. Interaction does not require signposting, but it helps.

Conceded claims need not be extended. If an argument is dropped, I will consider it true. But, I should be able to explain the arguments I’m voting on, so a quick explanation when extending an important argument would hel.

Style

I don’t care iff I can understand you. I will yell clear if necessary, but after a three times, I will stop flowing. Slow down on tags and be clear with subpoints, please. Except in cases where your opponent is unable to compete with your speech, I’m down for speed. If you’re in doubt, I will default to tournament norms for speed/tech.

Case, I guess

Case defense is overrated, case offense is appropriately rated, framing is underrated. A long framing sheet, even as early as the 1AC, is great. Impact terminalization and weighing is a must in case debates. Absent these arguments, intervention is more likely necessary to resolve the debate.

Infinite condo with intrinsicness perms is sounds like a fun model for debate. I find myself arguing that uniqueness controls the link but believing that the other way around is more correct.

I find it difficult to evaluate turns case scenarios, squo solves, or solvency arguments that are not articulated in the context of the advantage(s).

CP

Turns out that a fresh-out-the-oven cp that defaces the absurd cherry-picking that is the aff's solvency mechanism gets me just as excited as it would get anyone else. If the 1AC internal links aren't tight, punish them. The more specific, well-warranted the solvency deficit and net benefit are, the better. PICs and actor counterplans are not good strategies.

CP theory is probably reject the argument. 2A’s, don’t bother with shell theory if the 1AR can explain the obvious brightline. It's a hard sell for me that PICs are ever legitimate on (functionally) one-topical-aff topics.

Conditionality is great and underutilized. 1 condo makes theory an uphill battle, 2 is fine, 3 is pushing it, 4+ and I'll be more sympathetic to the aff.

K’s

I wasn’t the most prolific K debater, but I’m down. If you're reading complex high theory, I'm a bad judge for you - not because I'm particularly biased against the K, but because I'm not well-versed on many lit bases and I haven't judged a lot of high theory K rounds, so I might not necessarily resolve a messy debate in the way you expect.

The criticism should disagree with and disprove the aff. I have a high threshold for voting on sweeping claims about the structure of society/the world. I’m inclined to weigh the plan/the 1AC in some form. I am more convinced by 1NCs that engage with the case.

Lit I’m comfy with: SetCol, Security, Neolib

Leave time for questions.

Framework

Bread-and-butter fairness first is fine, but I avoided this strategy, although skews eval is probably True. I'm enthused by, well-read in, and interested in watching debates of the more interesting framework impacts - self-questioning, debatability, epistemic humility, etc. Procedural fairness is still an impact, though. Defenses of policymaking are fine, args like "policymaking key to solving climate change" are silly.

IVIs

My threshold for IVIs is 1. a sufficiently strong claim to the ballot and 2. they do not operate under any existing framework in the round.

If an independent voting issue's offense operates under an existing framework in the round, it is probably not an IVI. Examples of each side of this:

1. Reading SetCol on the neg conditionally is probably a relink to the K, but unless it's a categorically distinct abuse/offense/violation, it's not an IVI.

2. Regardless of whether or not "discourse matters" framing exists in a round, saying a slur is obviously distinct from using language of settlerism. I'll drop anyone who does it instantly, but it's useful to clarify that the IVI exists under my threshold - "slurs bad" operates under a distinct framework and has a clear claim to the ballot - the IVI is justified.

If you spam IVIs, I will take a baseball bat to your speaks. An additional link to your criticism is not, in fact, an independent voting issue.

There seem to be a disturbing number of IVIs that are essentially "answering our argument is a form of {whatever we criticize}, it's an IVI." This is not how debate works. If the position centers the issue of white people/cishet people/settlers/whomever, yeah, maybe. If it's a case turn - hurts the folks you're trying to help - that's not an IVI, it's a response with which you must engage. Your ideas are subject to criticism.

Critical Affirmatives

The affirmative should be topical or impact turn fairness cleanly to win my ballot. Beware, my most controversial ballots are finding thin routes to the ballot on framework.

Develop a couple pieces of thesis-level offense and lbl effectively. You will lose if you drop fairness first (skews eval, etc.) in the 2AC. I find I often give low speaks to 2ACs on critical affirmatives because they are terrible at answering framework (which is silly, and yet...).

Unless the aff impact turns framework, the counter-interp is usually undercovered by the negative. LBLing the standards debate is usually a waste of time.

Theory/Tricks

Paragraph theory > shell theory, especially on CP theory. I don’t need an interpretation to know what condo bad or actor CPs bad means.

I default to competing interps. Absent contradictory arguments, reading an interp is not necessary to win theory, but it helps. I think reasonability (substance crowdout) is underutilized and has potential value as metatheory. All other brightlines are terrible. I’m ambivalent about RVIs - debate them. I default to and am inclined to drop the argument, barring condo.d

I'll grudgingly tolerate friv. I dislike NIBs and/or presumption triggers that have sweeping implications (truth value). I’m uncomfortable but willing to abandon offense-defense for truth-testing or anything else.

Rebuttals

Please don’t call the POO, I’ll protect. Don't POO the 1NR. I hold the line on new args higher than most judges. No new layers that are not sublayers that are responsive to arguments in the block.

I prefer early-breaking debates. I would rather the 2nd constructives make arguments about the leeway I should give the rebuttal than leave me to protect or not. Do more weighing and warrant comparison.

Other

Presumption goes to advocacy of least change absent other argumentation. In a relevant case, I will apply this standard paradigmatically (e.g. a round in which 1. all offense is zero-risk 2. the negative reads a counterplan 3. no presumption arguments are made).

Splitting the block is fine.

Explaining dense arguments will make voting on them easier.

Unless you gain significant, asymmetrical advantage from disclosure, or someone in the round requests that I do not disclose, I will disclose. Please ask questions and argue with me if you think it’ll help you be a better debater. I won't change my decision, but as long as the conversation does not become circular, I don't really care if you argue with me (as long as we maintain basic respect).

Policy >>>>>>>>>> Value > Fact. My ideal value or fact debate involves a disclosed, relevant, directional plan-text in prep and no “must/must not read plan” or trichot theory. Debate is your space, do what you want with it.

Claiming that an argument was “conceded” has replaced substantive clash in a disturbingly large number of speeches. Overusing the phrase “conceded” or (even worse) “cold conceded” will cost you speaks.

I will likely grant permission for you to audio record my RFD. Please ask before recording.

Don’t call me “judge.”

Here are cool things I didn't do/wasn't able to do/didn't do as often as I wished. If you do them well, you'll get a speaks bump; if you do them poorly, I'll be sad: embedded clash; numbering frontline responses; speed, clarity, and efficiency; advantage counterplan + impact turn; going for the politics DA with good link arguments as a real strategy; courts CPs; being a K team.

Speaks

29.7+ – top speaker.

29.3-29.7 – top 5-10 speaker.

29-29.3 – top 20 speaker.

28.5 -29 – a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; should break.

28.2-28.5 – a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.8-28.2 – a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27-27.8 – a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

Be clear even when you are being unclear.

Similar Debaters

Please reach out to ask questions or talk debate

I don't talk about debate with anyone anymore, but when I did, it was with Riley Shahar, Sierra Maciorowski, Alden O'Rafferty, Trevor Greenan, and Brian Yang. If you can't reach me pre-round, Riley and I coached (and debated) together and are similar paradigmatically, they will know how to answer your questions.

he/him

email: bennettfees@berkeley.edu

I debated for 2 years at Brophy College Preparatory in LD. I did NPDA at Berkeley.

General Stuff:

• I’ll vote on any argument that’s warranted
• Speed is fine, just be clear.
• If you’re going to do an analytics dump just slow down so I can catch them and if you are reading multiple responses to an arg please number how many points there are before you spread through them (i.e. 4 points…)
• Speaks boost if you flash analytics and disclose open source.

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

Flows the doc ----------------------------------------X--Flow what I hear

Fairness/clash/research impacts on T --------X----------------------------------Movements?

Offense/defense on T -------------------------X-----------------Impact turns

Extinction outweighs vs K ---------------------------------------X---- Link level args/perm

Conditionality bad -------------------------X--------------------Infinite and good

Aff-leaning on T vs Policy Affs --------------------X----------------------Neg-leaning on T vs Policy Affs

Internal Link Answers ----X--------------------------------------Impact Defense

Actually extending arguments ----X--------------------------------------- Shadow Extensions

Policy: Love these. Please know the evidence and the internal link story well and extend arguments not just authors during cross applications. As always, weighing is ultra-important. Affs should have inherency and weighing should start in the 1AR. For CP’s you should say "condo -> judge kick" if you want me to judge kick. For DA’s quality over quantity- a couple well-cut cards with warrants that says what you want it to say > seven one-liners

Phil: I know a lot of phil as it was actually written by the author and I’m very comfortable judging these types of debates. Be sure to make comparative fw answers as well as line by line their framework. In debate I think phil gets used as a cop-out in favor of hiding tricks which I’m not a fan of. I’m fine with independent voters justified by the fw just be clear about them. If you must read tricks then be upfront about them and they should be grouped at the top or the bottom of the doc

Theory/T: Great. I think that line-by-line is especially important in these kinds of debates and value as many specific ties to the topic as possible. Weighing between standards is also a must that is too often overlooked. I default competing interps, DTA, no RVI, and fairness as a voter; however, I can be easily persuaded otherwise. Semantic heavy shells like nebel can be ok if it's cut right. I have a low tolerance for friv theory shells. Also, if you have a saucy justification or explanation of a standard that is unique from what most people would read SLOW DOWN so I can flow that independent of the stock stuff.

K: While I didn't run many kritikal positions in high school, I do it much more now and enjoy these types of debates. I’m comfortable with Baudrillard, Warren, Deleuze, Bataille and stock Ks, anything else I approach through how you explain the thesis of the K so be sure to describe what exactly your K is/does and why that means I should vote for you (clear overviews that explain the framing > extending obscure terminology) . I tend to buy “non-falsifiable” evidence versus most psychoanalytic theories, provided they’re warranted. I don’t like Floating PIKs and think the K needs to win its thesis of the world to win the round. I always appreciate a good link wall. For K affs v Topicality you need to explain how the process of debate functions under your model and should do more than just impact turn the voters. I think most K ROB don’t make much sense and the analysis of why certain impacts come first should just be included in the framing.

Stanford 2023 Update

Paradigm below is still accurate for parli, but I’m judging CA LD. Feel free to skim/read the whole paradigm below to get a sense of my general views on debate if you want to. Not opposed to speed or a more circuit style of debate, but will roll with whatever you feel good doing (which will probably be what’s most persuasive). I have literally no topic exposure. Please send the speech doc if you have one.

=====

About this Paradigm

• Elements of this paradigm are inspired by the (what I found to be very helpful) paradigms of Khamani Griffin, Meera Keskar, and Jon Telebrico among others.

• The highlights are at the top (the rest is under specifics). The 2 minute version of the whole paradigm is bolded.

• This paradigm is written with parli as its primary focus. I outline some specifics for other events at the bottom.

• Last updated 04/27/2021.

About Me

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Dougherty Valley ‘20

• 4 years of debate (3.5 years in open).

• Primarily parli with a little bit of extemp, impromptu, and world schools.

  • Parli was a mix of circuit/lay. I personally preferred circuit debate, but I did well with both.

UCLA ‘24

• BP and NPDA

Lay Presentation/Clothing/Standing/Etc.

None of this will affect my ballot in any way whatsoever as long as it doesn’t make the debate space exclusionary for others.

General Judging Philosophy

I want to judge rounds where the debaters control the round and do their best debate. As a judge, I see my primary role as finding the path of least resistance to the ballot. These statements lead me to the two main rules of my paradigm:

• I will avoid intervening as much as possible.

  • This pretty obviously leads to me being tech > truth.

• The preferences I list below are defaults - designed to minimize intervention in the absence of explicit argumentation - that are highly malleable.

A few qualifiers on those statements:

• I reserve the right to drop debaters that choose to use morally abhorrent advocacies, arguments, and/or verbiage (keep in mind that morally abhorrent is a pretty high bar: if you need to ask yourself if your advocacy/argument/verbiage choice is morally abhorrent then please just don’t run it).

• I will not vote on out-of-round issues (that’s an issue that is far better handled by coaches, tab staff, equity officers, etc.), but I will gladly be a conduit for bringing them to the appropriate tournament officials / coaches if you want me to be.

• I protect the flow.

  • Sorry, winning off of arguments snuck into a rebuttal ruins the integrity of debate as either a game or as an educational experience.

• I have preferences, and I am obviously biased towards them. I do my best to minimize this bias when presented with argumentation, but I’m only human.

• I will not actively fact check UNLESS:

  • I am specifically asked to on a specific fact AND

  • Fact-checking that fact is the path of least intervention to the ballot.

  • Just use CHSSA evidence challenges please. That makes life a lot easier for all of us, and it's the technically correct way to do things.

Specifics

Questions/Clarification

In the interest of transparency and making flow debate more inclusive, feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm (especially if my paradigm doesn’t address your question) and/or about rounds that I have judged you in (please include your name, team name, the tournament, the round number, and the round flight). I am down to answer questions face to face at in-person tournaments, or you can email me at mrfinn (finish the last name) @gmail.com .

I am always willing to give an RFD and be post-rounded, time permitting. If possible, I will try to do this immediately after the round, but, depending on specific circumstances, this might have to take place after breaks / elim results are announced.

Framework

• Trichotomy

  • I am extremely flexible on trichotomy issues as long as both sides are ok with it.

  • Value Debate

    • Please provide a specific value and value criterion and actually link back to / use them for weighing.

• Skewed framework doesn’t make me want to give you more speaks.

Weighing

• I WILL NOT WEIGH / CONSIDER ARGUMENTS OR PARTS OF ARGUMENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE LOGICALLY-CONNECTED CLAIMS, WARRANTS, AND IMPACTS.

  • This is bolded in all caps because I want teams to understand that I avoid intervening by not doing work for teams that don’t make coherent arguments. If your opponents’ argument doesn’t make sense as presented, then I’m going to do my best to avoid finishing it for them; the same holds true for you. This is one of the most common things that leads teams to think there was judge intervention when there really wasn’t.

• My default weighing is: Probability > Magnitude > Timeframe > Reversibility

  • This ordering is not absolute (e.g. I will probably consider nuclear war with 95% probability to be more important than an ant dying with 100% probability).

  • Please weigh your impacts for me. This is the single best way for you to minimize my intervention.

Layering

• I default to weighing all arguments on the same layer. I’m not going to up-layer for you.

  • For transparency’s sake, if I had a default layering it would be the following: Meta Theory > Theory/T > K > Case.

• I am very skeptical of “voting issues” being up-layered with little to no justification. If you do this, then please spend time justifying it.

Case

• Please break arguments down into Uniqueness/Inherency, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts.

  • Please signpost these.

• Please terminalize your impacts.

Plantexts

• These need to exist if there is a plan/counterplan.

  • Please don’t use any variant of “do the resolution.”

• Nebel is sketchy.

Counterplans

• I’m fine with all kinds of PICs.

  • I have a higher bar than most judges for the various PIC-bad procedurals. If you are going to run one of these, then it’s in your best interest to prove abuse.

• I default to not judge kicking per community norms. If you want me to judge kick, then ask me to and provide a basic explanation of what judge kicking is for your opponents (in case they don’t know).

  • Judge kicking is when the judge can choose to vote for the squo in the case in which they think the plan beats the counterplan but not the squo.

Perm

• The perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.

• It’s in the NEG’s best interest to read some sort of perm defense (competition) in the 1NC so that it’s not all new 2NC argumentation that the 1AR can golden turn.

  • Should be explicitly articulated as mutual exclusivity and/or net benefits.

  • Competition by stealing funding generally doesn’t work. Perm do plan and all of counterplan except stealing funding wrecks this.

• I default to viewing any perm that contains all of the plan and at least part of the counterplan as theoretically legitimate. I default to viewing severance and intrinsic perms as theoretically illegitimate.

  • Severance perms are almost certainly cheating. Intrinsic perms are probably cheating.

K

If you plan on K-hacking without actually knowing your literature and K, then I’m not the judge for you. This does not mean that I won’t vote for the K, but it does mean a couple of things:

• I will be more favorable to a K that is well-linked and clearly relevant but lacking in structure much more than a well-structured but questionably-linked and tangentially-relevant K.

• I might not be familiar with your lit base, but even if I am I won’t fill in the blanks for you.

  • Lit bases I have some familiarity with (listed from most to least familiar):

    • Cap, Biopower, SetCol, Anti Blackness, Fem IR, Anthro, Securitization, Ableism.

• I probably don’t know every framing trick you’ve hidden.

  • You can definitely hide them from your opponent, but you might also wind up hiding them from me.

    • If it doesn’t wind up on my flow after you spread through it in the middle of three bullets that you half finished in the impacts before realizing you were low on time and it doesn’t wind up on my flow, then sorry not sorry.

  • Please give me and your opponents a text if at all possible (especially with zoom debate - please make it a little more fun for everyone).

• I will vote for K’s with incredibly generic links if forced to, but your speaks will suffer. Please don’t commodify the K solely as a tool to get the ballot.

• I think that K Aff’s that don’t affirm the resolution as written are probably cheating.

  • Feel free to try to change my mind on this one. I’m honestly curious about how the NEG is supposed to participate in these rounds / have a viable path to the ballot.

• I personally think that most K’s, as read at the high school level, have alts that lack real solvency and/or competition with the plan.

Theory/T

• Overall, I have a lower bar for theory than most judges on the circuit.

• I default to competing interpretations.

• I default to drop the argument.

• I don’t care about the following (i.e. they won’t impact my decision / ballot) unless they are raised as issues:

  • Proven vs. Hypothetical Abuse

  • Frivolity of Theory

• Please read Theory/T in shell format.

• I will vote on the RVI if read. I probably have a slightly lower bar for this than most judges.

  • A justification for RVIs is NOT the same thing as reading an RVI. If you want me to vote on an RVI, then explicitly read one.

Speed

• Unless you’re coming from circuit LD or policy I can handle full speed.

  • The issue with most parli spreading is clarity rather than speed.

• I will call slow or clear if I need to.

  • If you make me do this more than twice, then your speaks will suffer.

• Please be respectful of the speed that your opponents are comfortable with.

  • Your speaks will definitely suffer if you don’t.

  • I am willing to listen to speed theory, but I think that it’s often a weak / difficult argument.

Points of Information / Order

• Please take at least two POIs per constructive speech.

  • This won’t impact my decision, but it will definitely impact your speaks, especially if the debate becomes sidetracked by an issue that a POI could have easily resolved.

• I don’t flow POIs as responses on the flow, but I do consider responses to POIs to be binding (i.e. if a team clarifies in a POI that a counterplan is unconditional then I expect it to remain that way throughout the round).

• Please don’t abuse POIs as “gotchas.” That’s what your speech is for.

• Call the POO, please. I will protect the flow, but I can’t guarantee that I will catch everything or that I am conceptualizing an argument’s place in the round the same as you are.

Speaker Points

The speaker points system is inherently problematic and should be replaced. However, until it is, I believe that participating in it is the best way to advance equity as a flow judge. I award speaker points solely on the basis of effective strategy and argumentation.

A general scale for speaker points (see above for specific things that might impact speaks).

• <= 25 = Something Problematic / Arguments that just don’t make sense.

• 25-26 = Serious errors that probably lost you the round.

• 27.5 = Average, no significant mishaps or particularly good choices.

• 28.5 = Good strategic choices (likely to be around even).

• 29 = Great strategic choices (likely to break).

• 30 = Visionary strategic choices (likely to do very well in elims).

Other Events

World Schools

• Models are very useful to clarify broad resolutions.

  • This doesn’t exempt the proposition from it’s burden to affirm the whole resolution.

• Humor is very much appreciated if pulled off well.

• Please take points of information.

• I will score speeches individually, but I expect to see coherence between speeches down the bench (a lack of coherence will definitely affect strategy scores).

Policy / Circuit LD

• Please put me on the email chain if there is one: mrfinn (finish the last name) @ gmail.com).

• I understand the core elements of the formats, but I’m not super familiar with their specific implementation (e.g. I know what theory is and how it functions but I’m not 100% caught up with LD’s or Policy’s norms for it).

• I can probably handle about 70% of full speed without a speech doc.

  • I’ll call slow or clear as needed.

  • Please slow down on key parts of cards for me. It is highly unlikely that I know the topic well.

• LD Specific:

  • I’m most familiar with evaluating LARP debates.

  • I’m down to evaluate kritikal debates, but keep in mind that I’m coming from a parli background.

    • I’m probably not familiar with your lit if it’s something more niche (see above for my general familiarity).

    • Parli kritks tend to be much more framework heavy, so make sure that you explain how you want me to evaluate the kritik.

  • As far as tricks/phil go, not my favorite but I will evaluate. Keep in mind, especially with phil, that my background here is fairly limited.

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument it may impact your speaks. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

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!

Add me to the chain: goel.arya24@gmail.com

I competed in LD and Policy for Dougherty Valley for 4 years.

Call me Arya not judge plz.

General Beliefs:

I won't vote on things that happen outside of debate (except for disclosure, need a ss for this ) and won't vote on arguments about a persons appearance.

When I debated, I rlly disliked judges who evaluated arguments as a "wash" bc they were lazy, so I try my hardest to not do this.

Argument preferences: CP + DA >>> by far my fav 2nr, then smartly thought out T args, then Ks and phil.

CP/DA:

Love these arguments and am probably most qualified to judge debates involving these. Here are some general thoughts.

- I'm forgetful, so you'll have to remind me if you want me to judge kick.

- I dont rlly care about condo but try not having more than 2-3

- Love case specific DA's but politics and process cps just work

-

Please weigh. Please. 2nr and 2ar impact calc are not new arguments but the earlier you start weighing the better it is for both me and you.

Judge Instruction is key for close debates and high speaks.

Theory:

Here it is again: I'm not voting on someone's appearance

Defaults: C/I; Drop the arg; No Rvis

-Disclosure is almost mandatory. Most def a hack for disclosure (need a ss) - there is a line though, round report theory or "must use citebox" is frivolous if you opensource with highlighting. The more arbitrary your interp gets, the less likely I care about it.

-I wont vote on args I didn't flow or catch, so if even if your 8 word condo blip is dropped im not going to feel guilty about dropping you. Especially important because online debate is already bad enough without 3 seconds blips.

This doesn't mean you cant read paragraph theory, just that instead of reading 4 3-second blips, spend 15 seconds on one, well warranted arg.

-Counterplan theory other than condo is almost always a question of predictability. The negative should prove that their cp is grounded in the literature and the aff should prove the opposite. Counterplan theory is almost never a drop the debater issue.

Topicality:

Love these arguments when done with lots of good evidence and evidence comparison. So many counterinterps are just cards that say words but don't actually define them, or they're pulled from completely different contexts that make them useless. Thus evidence with intent to define makes me unbelievably happy.

-Not a fan of T args where the only topical aff is the whole res, this means I don't really like Nebel (still will vote on it)

-Semantics and Jurisdiction don't matter a lot in a vacuum but precision can be cool in close debates

-I find myself caring more about strength of internal link than impacts, so please spend a few seconds warranting these outs - for example, in a limits debate, you would do this with a offensive case list.

-A large risk of a limits, probably turns and outweighs everything else.

Kritiks:

In high school, I read a decent bit of literature mostly pertaining to pomo, afropess and set col, but did not personally read these args in debate.

-K affs get perms so you better make those links good.

-People need to go for Heg and cap good more against non t affs

-the smaller the ov and the more the line by line, the happier both me and your speaks get

"I like the security K because I dislike shoddy Affs with poor evidence quality" - Vikram Balasubramanian

- the larger and more complex your theories become, the more you have to warrant them - saying ontology and calling it a day isnt enough.

K-affs:

If you read a performance and forget about it in the 1ar, I'm forgetting to vote for you.

1-off T-fw is viable (and often what I did) but like why? Just read a pik or something else as well

FW is always a question about models of debate, so the 2nr/2ar better explain it to me like I'm a fifth grader

Don't really buy "limits are a prison" type arguments

Movements >= fairness

Philosophy:

I really don't have experience evaluating this kind of stuff, but promise rlly high speaks if you can teach me something about this kind of debate.

-"I defend the resolution but not implementation" and "Ill defend the res as a general principle" aren't real arguments and don't make sense. Either you're defending the whole res, or you read a advocacy text

-Skep is defense unless you win TT.

Default modesty and comp worlds.

-If you give me a headache with tricks I'm nuking your speaks

if your underview is longer than a paragraph I'm going to be grumpy.

Misc:

If you have good disclosure practice lmk and ill bump speaks if i agree.

If the 1nc is all turns and case you start at a 29.5

If I think you're clipping, I'll start following along on the doc. If I catch you clipping, I'll tank your speaks but won't stop the round. I will stop the round if someone accuses (requires recording).

Paradigms of people I (mostly) agree with if you want more info: Kabir, Ansuman, Shikhar, Tristan

Policy Stuff:

I have even less patience for bad theory here than in LD. The only things that rises to DTD are disclosure and condo. That said, Infinite condo seems persuasive to me.

All the stuff above still applies.

Parli Stuff:

I'm comfortable with anything you want to read with the caveat that you warrant your arguments properly and generously - my background is in Ld and policy

You can go as fast as you want - I can keep up as long as you're clear

Due to the nature of Parli topics, I'm a bit more amenable to stupid and friv theory args - you should be able to beat them if you want to win - THAT BEING SAID if thats your main strat - just strike me and save us both

Creative DAs and Cps get xtra speaks - everything else about args applies from above

Last update: 8 November, 2023 for NPDI

I have mostly retired from judging but pop back in every once in a while. My familiarity with events is as follows: Parli > PF > Policy > LD > others. With that in mind, please be clear with the framework with which you would like me to evaluate the round. I will hold myself to the evaluative method defined within the context of each round. Absent one, expect that I will make whatever minimum number of assumptions necessary to be able to evaluate the round. If I find that I cannot evaluate the round... well just don't let it get there. Have fun!

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background:

-Coaching history: The Nueva School (2 yrs), Berkeley High School (2 yrs)

-Competition history: Campolindo (4 yrs, 2x TOC)

•TLDR: read what you want and don't be a bad person.

-If you do not understand the terminology contained in this paradigm, I encourage you to ask me before and/or after the round for clarification

-Please read: Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. If you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Deliberately ignoring them / misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people purposefully / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Intentional deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit to resolve these harms. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab. If there is any way that I can help you be more comfortable in this space let me know and I will see what I can do :)

•Case

-Terminalize and weigh impacts

-Uniqueness must be in the right direction

-Most familiar with UQ/L/IL/I structure, but open to other formats as long as its organized and logical

-Read good, specific links

-No impacts, no offense

-Counterplan strats are cool. do CP things, defend the squo, do whatever you want

-Use warrants

•Theory and the such

-Competing interps > reasonability, if you read reasonability it better have a brightline / a way for me to evaluate reasonability

-Friv T, NIB, or presumption triggers: not my preferred strat but if explained and justified, I have and will vote on it

-Read your RVI, justify why you get access to it

-Drop the team, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-Weigh standards, voters

-No preference for articulated vs potential abuse, have that debate and justify

•Kritik

-I won't fill in your blanks, the K must explain itself through its articulation, not its clarification

-Beware of reading identity based arguments that you are not a constituent of

-I'll listen to your K aff, justify not defending the resolution or lmk how your K aff defends the res

-Your alt/advocacy/performance better do something (or not! justify it!)

-Links must be specific, link of omission/generic links <<<<< specific links

•Misc:

-I am not a points fairy.

-if you want me to flow things well, tagline everything and signpost well

-have a strategy, read offense, collapse, justify your impact framing

-Have the condo debate, I don't default

-a thing with explanation and a warrant > a thing with no warrant but an explanation > a thing with no warrant and no explanation

-Default layering is T>=FW>K>Case, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-I can flow your speed (300+ is a bit much for online, but if i can hear it, its fine), "clear" means clear, "slow" means slow

-Speak any way you would like, so long as I can hear your speech you're fine I don't mind what else you do

-I by default track if arguments in rebuttals are new, but if you are unsure if I have flowed it as new, call the POO. When in doubt, call the POO - I will identify whether or not the POO defines an argument that is new.

-Presumption flows neg unless neg reads an advocacy, in which case presumption flows aff, i will vote on presumption but it makes me sad

-tag teaming is fine, but I only flow what the speaker says

-I don't flow POI answers, but they are binding

-if you have texts to pass, do so quickly and within the speech or during flex

-high threshold for intervening in the debate, but I will do so if justified and is the last resort

-i flow speeches, not cross, but again cross is binding

-please time yourselves. i will not time you. if you go egregiously over time I will stop you and tank your speaks

-don't be rude in cross

-i will not call for a card unless the validity of the argument it warrants determines the debate

-don't paraphrase your card or powertag, if you feel like you have to paraphrase, you probably can find a better card

-read offense, I'll only vote on things in the last speech, so if you want me to vote on it, it better be extended through the other speeches explicitly

-put me on the email chain, dgomezsiu [at] berkeley [dot] edu

-if you want extra feedback or have questions, email ^ or facebook messenger is a good place to reach me

He/him/his

My email is jrogers31395@gmail.com if you have questions, or if I'm judging Policy/LD/PF

On general argumentation:

I have a fairly nihilistic approach to impact calculus, but assume that death is bad.

Analyzed evidence > evidence > reasoning > claims.

On delivery:

Talk as fast as needed. "Slow" means slow down; "clear" means enunciate more.

If you exclude others, they can argue that you should lose for it.

I reserve the right to drop you if you're an asshole.

On Theory:

I default to reasonability, and would much rather judge either substantive policy or critical debate -- don't choose not to run theory if you actually feel like the other team is being abusive. I understand the strategic utility/necessity of theory, and have run/voted for a few garbagey theory shells before.

The aff should probably be topical, but if you don't want to be, just justify why that should be allowed.

On Kritiks:

I enjoy good Kritik vs policy or K vs K debate -- I personally have the greatest degree of familiarity with Marxist anti-capitalist stuff, and I've got a decent working knowledge of most of the popular kritikal lit bases I've seen recently.

If you can't clearly connect the theory/structure you critique to material harm and present an alternative that can solve it, I don't know why I should vote for you.

For carded debate:

Please slow and emphasize the author, date, and tag - it makes extensions much cleaner if I actually know what cards you're talking about

I only call for cards if the other team says you're lying/powertagging, or if one card becomes the fulcrum for most/all terminal offense in the round.

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?

• This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.

• As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.

• I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.

• I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.

• I default to fiat being durable.

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.

• I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

• I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).

• What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

• I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.

• All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
  
  
• I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
  
  
• I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

Hi, I'm Julie Guilfoy (she/her), I have been working with the Bishop O'Dowd debate team for the past 4 years as a coach and judge.

Give content warnings before the speeches start please. I'll disclose and do a verbal RFD and feedback if time and tournament rules permit. I welcome fast speaking and evaluate on what is on the flow and evaluate on the strongest case. I appreciate debaters that sign post their case well and go beyond citing warrants; that is, tying their claims and evidence to unified story. Pet peeve of mine is debaters that try to win on overzealous POO's. Be aggressive, not abusive. I welcome debaters running a critical theory based argument as long as they are explained well and don't exclude any debaters from the round. Make sure to engage in the standards, debates and talk about fairness and education.

UPDATED FOR NPDI 2023 :)

Note for NPDI: My paradigm is relatively vague so feel free to shoot me an email during prep if you have any questions

tldr: cool with anything case/friv/K, but not sure what's trending in the circuit rn because I haven't judged since 2021

Background:

• Third year data science at UC Berkeley (currently involved in Model UN so always appreciate a good case debate)

• Competed for Irvington High School 2017-2021 (Varsity Parli Captain); consistently got to out-rounds and competed at TOC in my final year

General Notes:

• Don't be rude or disrespectful

• Don't use any argument to skew your opponents out of the round; be as inclusive and accommodating as possible

• I go into every round assuming I know nothing about the topic, so make it educational in some aspect!

• Let me know before your speech how many sheets/args you're going to run for the sake of my flow

• Fine with speed as long as it's not used to skew opponents out of the round (will indicate you to slow if I can't follow)

Case:

• Flow case is always exciting, but make sure you have a good strategy

• Have a good collapse (make it clear which impacts/args you choose to weigh)

• Links and impacts are of the utmost importance

Theory:

• Okay with all types of theory as long as the interpretation(s) and violation(s) are clearly established

• Friv is okay but feels icky if that's your only strategy

K:

• Fine with them, explain everything

• Familiar with cap, fem ir, biopower, general framework of identity ks

• Please take questions from your opponents if they ask them

Speaker Points:

• Awarded based on strategy, not how 'nicely' you speak

Email me or message me on Facebook if you have any questions pre/post round at drishtigupta@berkeley.edu

Hello! My name is pronounced Hiwad (HUH-wahd). My background is in Parli Debate, where I competed for 1 year each at the high school/college levels and I now coach.

I weigh Education and Organization heavily. I enjoy when the second constructive speeches add new information to the round.

On Speed, I prefer when debaters are strategic and quickly go through important points and slow down for arguments you want to emphasize for me/your opponents. I do not prefer spreading as it is usually tough to flow; if you do, I welcome the opposing team to call “slow” in chat or aloud if needed.

I reward Theory when it is carefully and thoughtfully run, but not when it amounts to filling time. It is okay to run Theory and not collapse to it in the end, it is just like any other argument and only a priori if you argue that it is.

For kritiks, be prepared to send your opponents the main text upon request: Role of the Ballot and the Alternative. I find round-specific, as opposed to canned, kritiks to be the most compelling, effective, and educational. I have limited exposure to aff kritiks, FYI.

Provide quick off-time roadmaps. Always weigh your impacts. Don’t hesitate to use POIs and POOs. When you collapse to the argument you want me to vote on, please do so clearly and ideally more than once.

Good luck and have fun!

Hey! My name is Paulina (she/her) and for some general background I debated for four years in Parli at Bishop O’Dowd High School and graduated in 2021. I haven’t been very involved in debate since graduation so I will try my best to keep up and flow every argument, but it is probably not a good idea to spread since I am out of practice flowing. That being said, if you are going too fast I will just tell you to slow.

TL,DR: I am open to hearing any argument (as long as the argument isn’t racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, or violent in any way). I am most comfortable evaluating theory and case, but if you want to read a K go for it and just make sure you really explain your lit base. Please, please, do a lot of impact calculus and framing! Don’t forget to signpost and really develop your links. I will try to protect the flow but if you think it is important and I might miss it just call the POO. Feel free to email me (paulinaoakland@gmail.com) with any questions that you may have about my paradigm or any round!

Tech>truth

General:

This debate round isn’t about me and my preferences so have the debate that you want to have and tell me how to evaluate the round. This paradigm is more so that you all can understand my defaults and preferences, but at the end of the day I am open to evaluating whatever so have fun with the round and explain your arguments and you should be good :)

Case:

I love case debates that feature a good collapse and have really strong weighing and framing throughout. Make sure to not only have plenty of warrants but actually explain why those warrants matter. I really love good brink scenarios and you should always make sure that the uniqueness is in the right direction because I will find it hard to vote on a linear argument unless there is not other offense in the round. I am happy to hear all kinds of CPs (even cheater CPs) but also happy to vote on any sort of CP theory. Please, please, make sure the CP has a text and be ready to provide that text as soon as the CP is read. I believe that perms are a test of competition, but that is just my default so feel free to make any arguments stating otherwise.

Theory:

Theory was my favorite thing to read as a debater and I am willing to listen to any sort of theory argument you can come up with (totally fine with frivolous theory as long as its developed). I default to competing interpretations and drop the debater, unless you tell me otherwise. If you are going to go for reasonability please provide a brightline. If you are going to go for theory make sure you are doing sufficient weighing and properly explaining how you access fairness and education. I am totally fine voting on RVIs but you need to be able to justify the RVI with warrants and actually attach an impact to the RVI the that is weighed against the other theory impacts in the round. As well as respond to any RVIs bad arguments read. I am also fine with conditionality, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad.

Ks:

I am least experienced with K debate and my partner and I read theory (FW or Ks Bad) in pretty much every K round we were ever in (with the few rounds we read Ks as the exception), but that being said, I am still happy to evaluate any K. It is likely that I am not familiar with your lit base so please make sure you are sufficiently explaining your arguments to everyone in the round. Please take questions! Ks and their accompanying literature can be inaccessible sometimes so it is important to make sure that your opponents can engage in the round (and it is likely that I will have the same questions so it is probably in your best interest to take questions).

Speaks:

I am not huge fan of speaks at all and I will always give them based on strategy. I give speaks for things like good weighing and a clean collapse in the MO or PMR, or a good response strategy in the MG. I will give low speaks to anyone who does not slow or clear when asked, says anything violent/offensive, or excludes their opponents etc. Please try to keep the debate space an inclusive and safe space for everyone :)

*SPEED AND CLARITY

To ensure that your arguments are flowed, please notice when I shout clear or slow. Also, it's been a while since I've debated, so I'm probably not great for spreading.

*KRITIQUES

I'm usually down for Ks. I realise, however, that I tend to be a little biased against most biopower, cap, and sometimes race Ks. If I don't like a K, the problem is usually with the alt. This said, please try to refrain from endorsing a very generic, one-size fits all alt or try to put more ink on explaining it.

*RESPECT

Debators who are rude and impatient to their partners or opponents risk a markdown for speaker points. Yet worse — when you are rude, you invite risks that I may subconsciously pay more attention to arguments you've dropped and underestimate your stronger ones. This could be unfair for you, so please be strategic — not just with arguments, but behaviour too. I suppose that, as is with any form of conversation, being amiable is usually a good idea if you wish others to agree with you.

Pronouns: She/they

Tldr; It is important to me that you debate the way that is most suited to you, that you have fun and learn a lot. While I have preferences about debate, I will do my best to adapt to the round before me. The easiest way to win my ballot is lots of warrants, solid terminalized impacts (ie not relying on death and dehumanization as buzzwords), clear links, and a clean as possible collapse.

• For more lay/policy-oriented teams: Please sign-post, give warrants, and solid impacts. There is value in drawing attention to death and dehumanization but I would prefer that you speak beyond death & dehumanization as buzzwords -- give me warranted impacts that demonstrate why death & dehumanization are voting issues. Please make your top of case framing clear and try to stay away from half-baked theory positions. I would prefer a full shell with standards and voters, please.

• For critical, tech, and/or speed-oriented teams: I love it all -- I am open to the criticism, policy, performance, theory; whatever you want to do. Please keep in mind that my hearing is getting worse and being plugged into the matrix makes it even harder to hear online. I may ask for some tags after your speech if you spread. I probably default to competing interps more so now on theory than before but I’ll vote where you tell me to.

• For non-NorCal debaters: I recognize that debate varies by region. I’m happy to accommodate and do my best to adapt to your style. That said, I’m more likely to vote on a clear and consistent story with an impact at the end of the round.

Longer threads;

• RFDs: I’m better with oral feedback than written and I will disclose. The brainpower to write RFDs is substantially more draining than talking through my decision. I think it also opens up opportunities for debaters to ask questions and to keep myself in check as a judge. I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

• Kritiks: are important for opening up how we think about normative policy debate and a great way to challenge the performance/role-playing of policy debate. Given that many kritiks are an entry point for students to access policy-making/the debate space I am less enthused about opportunistic or abusive kritiks and arguments (which mean it's safe to assume I see debate as a pedagogical extension of the classroom not as a game). Please do your best to explain your position, especially if it’s somewhat obscure because the farther I get away from being a competitor, the less familiar I am with some of the stuff out there. For reference, I was a cap debater but don’t think I will just vote for you if you run cap. I actually find my threshold on cap ks is much higher given my own experience and I guess also the mainstream-ness of the cap k. I have a strong preference for specific links over generic ones. I think specific links demonstrate your depth of knowledge on the k and makes the debate more interesting. Please feel free to ask questions if you are planning on running a k. I think identity-based kritiks are * very * important in the debate space and I will do my best to make room for students trying to survive in this space. I’m good with aff k’s too. Again, my preference for aff k’s is that your links/harms are more specific as opposed to laundry lists of harms or generic links. It’s not a reason for me to vote you down just a preference and keeps the debate interesting.

• Theory: Please drop interps in the chat and make sure they are clear. As stated above I probably default to competing interps, but I’ll vote where you tell me to. RVIs weren't a huge thing when I was debating in college so I'm honestly not amazing at evaluating them except when there's major abuse in round and the RVI is being used to check that. So if you’re sitting on an RVI just make sure to explain why it matters in the round. I have a preference for theory shells that are warranted rather than vacuous. Please don’t read 9 standards that can be explained in like 2.

• Other items

• I do not flow after the timer. I've noticed this has become more and more abused by high school teams and I'm not into it. So finish your sentence but I won't flow your paragraph.

• Off-time roadmaps are fine.

• Very specific foreign policy debates are fun and extra speaks if you mention what a waste the F35 is.

• I will drop you or nuke your speaks for racist, transphobic, sexist, or just generally discourteous nonsense.

• POOs -- Since we're online, I don't pay attention to chats (unless reading interps) and I don't recognize raised hands. So, please just interrupt and ask your question. It's not rude, just makes things easier.

If you've read this far lol: sometimes knowing a little about my background helps debaters understand how I approach debate. I debated parli (& a little LD) at Santa Rosa Junior College for 3 years. My partner and I finished 4th in the nation for NPTE rankings and had a ridiculous amount of fun. Then we debated at San Francisco State University for our final year with the amazing Teddy Albiniak -- a formative experience and a year I treasure deeply (long live the collective! <3). Our strengths were materialism and cap, and very specific foreign policy debates.

Go gaters

Last Updated

11/10/2021

Background

Former coach at Washington HS and New Roads School. Circuit Parli debater at Prospect (2013-17). Former BP debater at USC.

General Ballot

I will vote for mostly anything as long as you explain it well. Please give content warnings pre-roadmap so that strat changes can be made accordingly. Deliberately misgendering a competitor in the round will result in an auto-loss and a not so pleasant conversation with me and a member of tournament staff. As a judge, I’ll vote for the single team that has the clearest path to the ballot. While warranted extensions can be helpful in terms of voting, I very much dislike when teams rely on "extend ___ uniqueness/argument". Chances are, there aren't as many "conceded" arguments as you think there are - don't be lazy on the line-by-line. My default on dropped arguments is that they are true and I will evaluate them as such. If you have questions on presumption, message me. I want it to be easy to vote, so do that for me. Debate is a game (unfortunately?) and as such, everyone is reading arguments in order to either increase and/or secure their chances of a W. Therefore, I find it hard to be convinced that any particular argument ought be banned or norm ought be forgone (e.g., banning the use of back files, shaming speed, disallowing Ks). That DOES NOT mean that I believe that we should abandon common human decency and practices of kindness.

Speed

I will call clear if I have to, but speed generally isn’t a problem. That being said, if your opponents are not able to compete with your speed, I expect that you will adjust accordingly. Please do not read Speed Theory if you are not going to give your opponents the opportunity to slow down (by calling 'slow' or 'clear') in previous speeches. I find it difficult to identify a bright line between conversational, fast and very fast speaking and unless you tell me where the bright line is, therefore it is incredibly difficult for me to evaluate Speed Theory. Keep tag-lines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow.

Kritiks

I’m down for them as long as they have a link and they aren't being read purely to deny your opponents equitable access to the debate space. Parli generally has larger K frameworks than policy, so I’m down with that default. Please avoid making generalizations about society. In the same vein, I'm inclined to vote against root cause claims without warrants. I think the aff has the ability to leverage the 1AC/plan as offense versus the alt. I find that the debates that are most engaging/convincing, are ones where kritikal teams engage with case and where case teams engage with the criticism.

K affs are all good in policy, but are sketch in parli unless they have a policy alt. If you feel so inclined to read a kritikal affirmative, I expect that you will disclose within 10 minutes of prep. I never read performance Ks, but am down to listen to them. I’ll flow as well as I can, but be ready to explain how you give the neg ground. Very low threshold on offense against truth testing framework. The lit-bases that I am reasonably well-read on include cap, whiteness, neolib, fem and setcol.

Framework debates are my jam.

I am a firm believer that good case/theory debates are more valuable than bad K debates so don't be cheaty just because you have a backfile.

DAs/CP

Make sure to explain how the CP functions in the 1NC. I am not a stickler on CPs being ME so have fun with that. If you choose to read a perm (in most cases, you should), I'd prefer you read a perm text and an explanation for how the permutation has solvency/functions. "Perm, do both" is not a perm text. I am very unlikely to vote on a Delay CP because I have yet to hear a good justification for why delay resolves the harms in squo better than the plan and doesn't bite the DA(s).

Theory

Default to competing interps and no RVIs, and theory coming first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but if it is there, point it out and your speaks will go up. If you are going for theory, you better actually go for it. I probably won’t vote on it if it is 30 seconds in the 2NR/AR. That being said, I really don't expect you to go for every theory arg you read. High threshold for PICs bad and Condo bad. I will not vote for Ks Bad if it is used as an out from actually engaging with critical positions. I also find that generalizing that all Ks are bad does very little to improve the quality of the debate space. If you choose to read a generalized Ks Bar argument, I will need warranting for why the argument you are attempting to mitigate is specifically exclusionary to your team in the round.

Tricks

I'm going to be completely honest and say that tricks go completely over my head. That's not to say they are bad arguments or ineffective but rather that they are often inadequately explained and I fail to find a way to evaluate how they interact with other args on the flow. Riley Shahar is a much better judge for such args.

Weighing

Generally default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise. Weighing is your job, not mine. I need clear impact scenarios to vote for an argument.

Speaker Points -- I will vote on 30 speaks theory

25 - Please take a moment to rethink what you are about to say (P.S stop being racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc)

...

28~28.4 - Some strategic errors but they weren't devastating

28.5~28.9 - Meh, average

29~29.3 - Definitely know what you're doing

29.4~29.9 - Your round vision and strategy was on point

30 - WOOO I SPY A WINNER

General School-Wide Conflicts

New Roads, Prospect, Washington

Miscellaneous

Off-time road maps PLEASE.

Tag-teaming is all good, but don’t be 'that kid' who tag teams the whole time. I'll be rather disgruntled and take it out on your speaks.

Speaks are more based on strategy than anything else. I think that speaker points are pretty bogus considering that style preferences are quite subjective.

Shadow extensions are awful.

I will more than likely be okay with my RFD being recorded for learning purposes. It's generally a more efficient alternative to repeating portions that you didn't manage to write down on your flow. Please ask before you record, I don't want being "on record" to deter other debaters from asking questions.

**Feel free to email with any questions - keskar@usc.edu

or FB message me

I did high school parliamentary debate four years, so I have quite a bit of experience and knowledge of the activity. Personally, I prefer case over theory, but I can understand theory and understand that sometimes it is necessary in round. I have a little bit of K knowledge, but so if you do run a K, please try and make it as clear as possible for me and the other team what your links are. I'm also Tabula Rasa as much as possible so if your opponent brings something up, try not to leave it unrefuted! I was a second speaker in parli, so sign-posting is a huge thing I look for.

Other than that, I care if you speak clearly and use logical arguments. Ultimately, speaking style does not really matter to me.

I debated LD/Pol for Dougherty Valley grad 2021. bidround 2wice and choked 2wice. super washed. conflict for dv.

He/Him or They/Them or whatever you want to call me so long as I can tell you're talking to me. im not the best at it but i try to be expressive during speeches

prefer speechdrop instead of email but i dont really care that much

If you insist on an email chain: skotapati@ucdavis.edu

If you have questions for me after round: kotapati.saketh@gmail.com or message me on facebook

Disclosure is mandatory and a true argument to an extent. if your interp is annoying ill be annoyed. full osource with highlighting makes the most sense. jv/novice disclose as your coach lets you. var should disclose. var vs novice do not read disclosure but you can debate as normal (assuming it is a toc tournament)

if i say i won't flow an argument, i won't flow it.

Tech > Truth with some exceptions below

I like: Policy > Theory/T = Topic/stock Kritiks > other ks >> nonT = Phil strike me for tricks

It has been a while since I debated and I am not familiar with a lot of critical literature anymore. If you still want to go for a more "entry level" kritik such as cap or security or a topic specific one, please explain the kritik with descriptors and not buzzwords. a lot of kritiks are probably true arguments though, so if u can explain it in a way that is easy for me to understand it im very comfortable voting off of it

topical k affs are great arguments. NonT vs fwk is repetitive but fun to evaluate. KvK can get messy but if you keep it clean and explain with descriptors rather than buzzwords i can evaluate them well.

NonT affs by nature are not good arguments. Clash and fairness are probably true arguments. If fwk is gone for well, i dont usually vote aff. Not gonna be mad if you decide to read this tho, if ur confident about ur nonT aff dont let this stop you

if memorizing/reading a pre-prepared buzzword-filled 2nr is ur method for going for the k, dont read the k. preparation is important, but u need to actually know what youre debating. if you cant explain the k without an aid, youre better off not reading it

If the 1AR reads a framework interpretation to weigh the aff against the K, I will ALWAYS weigh the aff against the kritik.

I will not flow tricks (skep, logic, truth testing, indexicals, etc). I will not flow the RVI unless the initial shell is something like Nebel or shoes theory. friv theory is a trick -- i will only vote on it if it is conceded and i will never vote on it if reasonability is won.

explicit cheating or Bigotry is a L 20 for the offender and a W 30 for the other. if ur clipping or doing some other form of cheating in round and your opp wants to challenge, i need ev in the form of recordings or whatever fits best. if i notice it, i wont need ev and ill stop the round. ill mark on my copy of the doc where you clipped. if you have ev that counters my decision, ill apologize and we will resume round with no harm done. there is no argument if i come to the decision that a debater is displaying bigotry or overstepping boundaries in any way, unless you IMMEDIATELY APOLOGIZE and CORRECT YOURSELF. stuff like misgendering can be accidental, but its really easy to tell when something is malicious vs an honest mistake that you feel bad about/will correct. immediate L 20, reported to tab, round is stopped

if u want to be funny during ur speech, be funny. your speaks will rise. just dont try too hard and know how to be funny in the first place

Favorite 2nrs are disad + case or cp + disad/nb + case.

your 1nc can be interesting without reading random skep triggers or fringe kritiks. try 1 off disad, or massive impact turns. your speaks will rise.

do not feel hesitant to ask me any questions at any point. i will answer it if it is appropriate.

most importantly, keep it respectful. ur opp is not your enemy. you are both trying to compete and learn. excessive disrespect will not be tolerated -- i will intervene.

Hey - I debated LD and Parli for 3 years and graduated from Northwood High School (Irvine, CA) in 2019. I qualified to LD and Parli TOC my senior year. I also debate NPDA for Cal (I’m a 3rd year right now).

Include me in the email chain: karkri23atgmail.com

tldr:

For High School Parli TOC:

I am and always have been a lay judge (You don't need to read the rest trust me).

I will evaluate the flow as objectively as possible with minimal intervention (speed is fine)

Read any theory/K/phil you want and I'll evaluate it

All things being equal, I lean FW-T over K but can be convinced otherwise

Love a good Case/DA/CP debate the most but you do you

Don't be a jerk and you will probably get speaks somewhere between 28-30

I will vote on presumption

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.

Where to Pref me:

Larp: 1

Theory:1

K: 1

Phil: 1

Tricks: 1

In case you haven't noticed, I am a GOD.

Most importantly, Have fun :)

The Long Version:

What I read in LD:

Aff - big stick, soft left

Neg - topic da+cp, politics/elections da+states cp, afropess, cap, topicality, Agamben, Baudrillard

What I read in Parli:

Aff - big stick, soft left, Orientalism, Settler Colonialism, Model Minority

Neg - topic da+cp, politics/elections da+states cp, afropess, cap, topicality, Agamben, Baudrillard, Settler Colonialism

Parli Specific Notes:

Speed is not an issue for me but if you excessively yell slow and clear to your opponents and proceed to be just as fast and unclear, I will be fairly annoyed.

Call POO’s just in case but I will protect

Weighing is not a new argument

The PMR does not get new warrants unless its answering a new MO argument. However, cross applications are cool as long as the warrant and implication was made in the MG and you are just merely weighing it on a different part of the flow.

LOR does not have to extend the MO

I think ruse of analogies with K debate or Independent Voters can be pretty problematic and/or nonsensical at times and realistically believe that you should make the internal link very clear as to how certain actions and rhetoric relate to larger events or mentalities.

General Notes (Mostly LD):

All impacts matter - the degree to which they matter is up for debate. This means I'm not fond of strategies that rely on preclusion or permissibility. (This does not mean you can make arguments as to why considering a certain type of impacts can be violent e.g. focus on materiality is settler colonial so you should not weigh the aff. However, just asserting the state is settler colonial means no aff is not compelling.)

Dropped arguments only mean the warrants for them are true - their implication can still be debated.

Bad arguments should be answered easily

LD: Extending the case in the 1AR does not mean card-by-card extensions. Leverage warrants in 1AC evidence efficiently.

Pet peeve: "that was in the overview"

LD: Clipping is cheating - if I notice it, then you will lose regardless of whether your opponent notices it.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to 1NC arguments about only needing to respond to spikes if extended in the 1AR - this does not apply to topicality preempts and/or paradigm issues. I don't think putting condo/pics/etc bad in the aff and warranting it properly counts as a "spike"

I'll clear you 3 times - after that, it's up to you to notice that I'm not flowing.

Do what you want with flex time/CX but good questions can definitely help your speaks

LD Only: Disclosure - more is better. I believe all cards should be disclosed open source (this includes the 1AR/2NR). I am happy to boost speaks for good disclosure practices - just tell me before the round. I'm more willing to vote on theory arguments related to disclosure than almost any other theory argument.

Parli: Disclosure is not a thing and I will not vote on it

Saying "independent voting issue" doesn't matter to me until there's a warrant for why.

Defaults (These can be easily changed by just asserting the converse should happen)

T/condo/disclosure: Drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs

All other theory: Drop the arg, reasonability, no RVIs

Epistemic modesty

Affs -

Do what you want- defend the topic or don’t. I probably lean slightly towards T-FW but I am willing to vote against it if the arguments are won.

Topical stuff:

Properly warrant out the internal links to your scenarios- even if you are big stick, explain to me why extinction happens because of tensions. Solvency should be specific to your aff.

If your only strat against Agent CPs and PICs is theory, you probably should have written a better aff.

Disads -

I love a good case vs da/cp debate- if you do it well you will probably get high speaks in front of me.

LD Only: I like both topic-specific and politics - I read a lot of cards after the round, even if you didn't reference them. That's not what makes my decision, but I compare it with my flow.

LD Only: Affs need cards against politics disads.

Counterplans:

I have no real disposition for or against condo. Feel free to be condo, but I’ll also evaluate condo bad theory.

I have no real disposition for or against “cheater” counterplans. Feel free to run consult, delay, sunset, etc., but I will evaluate theory against them.

Permutations are tests of competition

I will judge kick CP's as long as you tell me why I should and under what conditions I should kick it under.

T-FW:

Do what you want but make sure that if you are going for it, implicate your fairness and education impacts as either a prior issue or as turns specific to the aff's method.

I read this a lot and I love a good collapse on it.

I am more than willing to vote against it but all things being equal, I probably lean towards FW rather than against it.

Other T/Theory:

I am very comfortable voting on “frivolous theory.”

I will vote on disclosure theory in LD, and I am very sympathetic to disclosure good.

Paragraph theory is fine but if I miss it, then your opponents most likely did too and I won't vote on it.

I have no real disposition for prioritizing proven abuse or potential abuse. I will default to potential but can be persuaded otherwise otherwise.

I default to drop the team for most theory but I will buy drop the arg if it makes sense. When reading theory, give me a good reason why I should drop the team or the argument.

RVI's are fine

Burdens arguments don't need voters, but they do need sequencing claims.

I think that fairness vs education weighing is highly strategic. Nine times out of ten when you go for theory, you should tell me whether I should prioritize fairness or education, why, and what the in-round implication of the weighing is.

Kritiks:

I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, so don’t be afraid of reading your arguments in front of me. However, informative overviews and explanations are appreciated, especially if the K lit is dense.

If it’s relevant, the ks I’m most familiar with and used to running include Anti-Blackness, Orientalism, Cap, Set Col, Agamben, Baudrillard and Deleuze.

I default to evaluating the alternative as a method of resolving the k. This means I don’t particularly care what the “world of the alternative” looks like, as long as you’ve told me why your method is a sufficient strategy to resolving the harms of the k.

I evaluate the alternative like a counterplan in terms of conditionality/permutations. See the CP section.

I default to evaluating fairness and education before the k, but I will buy arguments that kritikal impacts either come before or impact turn theory impacts.

If you have questions or if there’s a question I haven’t answered, please ask me before the round!

Competed in parliamentary debate for 4 years at Campolindo (2017-21); current undergrad at Duke

General

- Basically, run whatever you want.

- While I was (almost exclusively) a case debater throughout high school, don't let that deter you from reading your theories and Ks. It is your round and you should do what you want / are most comfortable with / have the best chance to win with.

- Call POOs. I should not have to protect the flow in the first place because new information should not be brought up. But if it is, the opposing team should call it out. Tell me exactly which point / articulation should be stricken from the flow.

- Read all texts (plans, interps, alts, etc.) twice and slowly.

- Give the opposing team a copy of any texts in a timely fashion if they ask for one.

- Do not go over time.

Case

- When defending the resolution, Aff should give a clear top of case with definitions and all components of the plan. Assume I know no specifics about the topic.

- Signpost your advantages/disadvantages clearly; brief taglines for each point and subpoint are very helpful for keeping the flow organized.

- Sources and random statistics / "facts" are meaningless because anyone can make anything up. Use logic and reasoning to construct sound warrants that make sense and prove why your claims are correct.

- Tech = Truth? Just do not make anything up and then everything in the round will be true. Gut check and use logic / common sense to debunk false claims.

- Terminalize your impacts and be sure to weigh them: magnitude, probability, time frame, etc. If you can, quantify your impacts but definitely compare them qualitatively to the opposing team's.

- Tell me what the voters are. My RFD could be as simple as listing the taglines / numbers of the voters I voted on.

Theory

- Make sure your theory shell is complete and you touch on all necessary points so that I can evaluate it and vote on it.

- As stated above, run whatever theory you want, go for an RVI, etc. Just be prepared to defend why you are allowed to do so.

- When in doubt if there was abuse in the round, my advice to you as a debater (not as a judge) would be to read the shell.

Ks

- It should not matter whether or not I am familiar with the literature of your K because it needs to be explained clearly and thoroughly for the opposing team regardless. Do not skew the opposing team out of the round because of how you read your K.

- Outline the parts of your K very clearly and make sure your links are explained thoroughly.

She/Her

If you know you know.

2/18/24 Update - Final Update:

Abstractly T-FW is true, but concretely K Affs still have the ability to win these debates because 95% of all topics are reactionary. In other words, I'm a T hack but I'll vote for the K Aff if you beat T.

tldr; Debate how you would like to debate. I always like to see new ideas, frameworks, and styles, and having speakers adjust to my preferences stifles that. Debate in accordance to what makes you feel comfortable, and feel free to ask any questions about judging preferences before the round.

My name is Asa Levine. I’ve competed in parli all throughout my 4 years in high school. I’ve dabbled in both kritiks and theory and am well familiar enough with both, but I give no disproportionate weight to arguments made in such veins during rounds (to the best of my ability). I’m generally open to any argumentation, whether case, K, or theory, as it’s the creative use of them that matters more than the fact they exist. I see debate as a game with boundaries set by each and every debater, and I love to see new ideas being brought to rounds, especially the ones that really push the idea of what debate is and can do.

Evaluation:

• I have no preference on the use of case, kritiks, theory, and so on.

• I am comfortable with speed, but especially with the shift to online debate where comprehension has become a little more challenging, please heed to any request to slow down as to ensure I am able to get everything down.

• Though judge intervention is inevitable with any judge, I will default to evaluating flow before anything to minimize any intervention upon my part as far as is possible. I will generally be giving precedence to tech over case unless solid reason is given as to otherwise.

Argument development and continuity creates the foundation of my judging framework. Poorly developed arguments, whether that’s missing/presumed links, warrants, impacts, extensions, or just generally explanation and specification in areas that need it, will more or less always fall lower than theoretically weaker arguments that have been notably better developed. This can possibly include anything from case arguments missing warrants to K perms left unexplained to T-shells missing specific standard impacts. Don’t assume that since I’ve done debate, theory, and k’s before that I’ll fill in gaps left; if anything I’ll be holding it all to a higher standard.

General Notes:

I did mostly circuit ld in HS and qualed to the TOC. I read mostly policy/theory args along with some k affs , so those are probably the style of args I'm most comfortable with.

Clarity >>>>> speed.you should go at a speed that is understandable and flowable. I'm pretty bad at flowing and its something you should be aware of.

I believe heavily in tech>truth so I'll vote for anything so long as its warranted.

I think condo, states cp, etc are generally good but can be convinced otherwise

FW v K Aff/Plan v K

I lean pretty heavily FW/plan against the critique, but I if the K is well explained and justifications for why being non t are won I'll still vote for it.

Theory

I default competing interps and drop the debater. I'm ok with paragraph theory. I'll vote off any shell/trick so long as its warranted.

"It’s one thing to study something, but it’s an entirely different thing to actually experience it." -- Dr. Shani Tahir Mott

i value debate for its ability to teach students about issues and literature that are unlikely to come up otherwise. i hope that this activity shapes the activities and education you pursue outside of it!

-------

i debated in a small region with many outdated practices and graduated with no accomplishments. i'm currently the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of debate, i'm studying public health and africana studies at johns hopkins university.

if you’re an asian debater looking for community and resources, i welcome you to apply for the asian debate collective!

-------

i am exhausted and frustrated with how long rounds take, and it's usually avoidable. prep time ends when the email has been sent. document compilation and attaching the file is not free time.

the 1ac should be sent by start time, even if i am not in the room. if it is not, the aff's speaker points will suffer. if the neg has failed to be present and offer their emails in a timely manner, the neg's speaker points will suffer.

-------

quick and easy: i am mediocre to bad at straight policy, theory, and topicality debates. i will try my best though! on the other hand, i am much better at evaluating kritikal and clash rounds.

good and better debating > any of the preferences i list below.

-------

general:

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com — add me to the email chain.

simdebates@gmail.com — for other inquiries.

go as fast as you want. i will clear each speech no more than twice and if you fail to adapt, you’ll just have to accept that my flow will have missing pieces.

if you want me to flow something, it needs to be read out loud — this includes re-highlighted evidence.

everyone needs to weigh and layer more.

clear extensions for core parts of an argument are absolutely necessary — if you jump straight into the line by line, don’t expect me to extend the rest of the argument for you.

-------

kritiks & fw:

i believe that judges use ballots for kritikal arguments to remedy racial guilt/anxiety, but that is not me. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, particularly when it relies on unwarranted or circular claims, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays, and i am uninterested in listening to rounds where arguments would not even be defended by the authors of evidence.

being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot.

there needs to be far more substantive explanation in these rounds and far less jargon/made-up words.

framework always determines these rounds — at the end of the round, i need to have a clear way to evaluate between the 1ac’s impacts and criticisms of their scholarship.

specific links to the aff’s mechanisms are fantastic, and i love it when there’s evidence that shows you clearly researched and strategized against a specific aff.

you do not need an alt in the 2nr to win. if you are going for one, please give me a reasonable explanation of what it does rather than vague grandstanding.

i think debate is a game, one that have epistemological implications and consequences, but you can debate otherwise.

both teams need to provide a workable model of debate with clearly defined roles of aff/neg teams.

i have a mild preference for clash and education impacts over fairness, but i’ve voted both ways. just weigh well and explain why procedural fairness is an independent good.

a lot of k affs read DAs to fw that are functionally the same thing — labeling arguments differently does not make it a different argument. have distinct and explained warrants.

-------

policy:

this is not my forte so i definitely have a higher bar for explanations.

impact turns are very fun.

-------

theory & topicality:

i evaluate t violations using the plan text and nothing else.

explain very well and don’t be blippy — not fantastic at judging these.

hidden aspec is fine as long as it’s not hidden to me. i flow by ear and won’t go back to the speech doc to double check if it’s there.

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 :))

Hello! My name is Manav Manivannan and I was a former debate for Northwood Highschool in Irvine California. I did a variety of events from parli to pf to speeches like extempt and impromptu. I qualified for the NPDI twice, won 2nd at CHSSA state for parli in my junior year, and qualified to 5 national extempt tournaments.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round about any questions you may have regarding my debate experience or even my college and work experience. Don't keep the room silent!

Judging Preferences:

Be RESPECTFUL to your opponents at all time, I will dock you on speaks if you are unnecessarily rude or cut them off without any consideration.

I'm fine with any speed, I'll tell you to stop if your speech becomes unintelligible.

Weight your arguments at the end of the round and make your VOTERS clear. Don't make any assumptions and clearly explain why your team deserves the ballot.

Honestly I don't really care if you treat me like a lay judge and if you feel the need to explain every single concept, especially relating to T/K.

Speaker Points:

I judge speaker points on a couple of criteria:

1) Comprehension: Can I understand what you're saying.

2) Professionalism/Respect: Treating everyone in the room with courtesy and being respectful to all parties (opponents, judges, audience). Debate helps you prepare for the real world and therefore you should act in a professional manner.

3) Argumentation: Are your contentions properly structured, logically flow, and do you explain them properly.

Usually I will default to laddering speaks giving winning teams higher speaks. I will not give a 30 because no one can be perfect but I'm fine with giving 29.9. I range speaks from 25-29.9 unless you are just atrocious, then I'll give less.

Case Debate:

I 100% prefer case debate that is relevant to the resolution and honestly will pref case over everything else unless SPECFICALLY pointed out as to why I should pref K, T, etc. over case. Education about the topic is important and should not be overlooked.

Theory:

Theory is good when used right, but when done poorly it can really ruin a round. I will drop your speaks if you run friv T. RVI's are fine. Don't make me work hard to weigh what is more important in the round, be CLEAR or else I will default case.

Kritiks:

I never really ran Kritiks, so really don't run them unless you absolutely need to, i.e. you couldn't come up with a case. If you use K's as a tactic to exclude other groups or people I will drop you.

Honestly, you can consider me to be an old school judge and I promise to give a fair and equitable decision. Most importantly, make sure to HAVE FUN. Speech and Debate genuinely changed my life and is one of the most impactful things that I have done in my life.

Good luck!

General stuff: (please read)

TLDR: I am a coach for Campo, and I debated for cal parli last year. I debated all 4 years in high school, doing lay PF for the first 2 years, then transitioning to national circuit PF and attended gold TOC in my senior year. I will vote on the flow. you have to have warrants in your arguments. I will reward you for giving me reasons to prefer certain arguments or impacts, and for articulating clear arguments, but I will still vote on dropped/conceded arguments first because it's the path of least resistance (smallest amount of judge intervention). If you have a specific question, either before or after the round, email me @ olive.ray.mccauley@berkeley.edu I'll do my best to answer.

1) I will vote on the easiest out. pls collapse and tell me what the easiest out is so that i don't have to do a lot of work and accidentally intervene.

2) It's my responsibility as a judge to make sure that I do my absolute my best to make a good decision, because, "You all put a lot of effort into this activity, and it's my onus to adjudicate every round thoroughly. If you feel like I'm failing to do this in any way, pls call me out." (bilal askari) That being said, I'm not perfect. I don't always get everything on my flow, so if something is particularly important, try to signal it's important by just saying "this is critical for xyz" or something along those lines.

3) Put warrants (reasons things happen) in your stuff. just do it. if I don't know how you get from point A to point B, I'm probably not going to vote on point B, even if you say it a lot and tell me it's really important. Do NOT ask me rhetorical questions, they are not reasons/warrants and I can't answer them without intervening with my personal opinion.

4) a lot of speed is fine.

5) Please extend things that you want to win on throughout the round, even if it's not super fleshed out, at least mention it. I'm definitely okay with things getting expanded in the back end of the round, For example, if you have arguments about climate change, and argue that climate change will cause extinction but you add an extra warrant or replace one in your last speech, and it's not a response to a new argument in the MO, I will not evaluate that new stuff. You might still win on the argument, but you won't win on the new stuff, so your time is probably better spent on saying things that *aren't new.*

6) points of order: I protect the flow, but I might not get everything. Points of Order are good, but should not be called for: weighing/comparative analysis, slight rephrasings, or contextualizations in terms of other arguments. Things you should call points of order for: new warrants, new examples, or a completely new cross-application to a conceded argument (unless it's weighing. I do not consider weighing new in the last speech of the round, its what I want you to do.).

7) speaks: they are super arbitrary, change a lot from judge to judge and are riddled with sexism, racism, xenophobia and a whole host of other things, so I default to 28s if you do a decent job literally saying words in round. Extra points are awarded based on how well you executed/utilized warrants in round strategically. If you do things that are offensive (ex: racist, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic) or are just generally mean/rude, I'll give you a 26, probably drop you, and talk to your coach. Don't be toxic.

9) Signpost. I flow on paper, so please let me know (ex: 'go to the "a" point on uniqueness') where your argument goes, otherwise, I might not evaluate it as a response to something you need to answer, because I just don't know where it goes.

Advantage/Disad:

I am most familiar with topical case debate. I think the uniqueness, link, impact structure is good for clarity, which is good for everyone in round. Don't try to be so tricky that your opponents can't understand you, because if it's that unclear, your judge (me!) probably won't either.

Your uniqueness decides the direction of links (aff: things are bad now, affirming makes them better, neg: things are good now, affirming makes them worse), so please make sure that your uniqueness corresponds with your links. I'm down for wacky arguments, just make sure you explain it to me and your opponents.

Counterplans are good, just make sure you prove they're competitive.

other than that, have good warrants! explain to me how the resolution and plan (your plan can be either the resolution or something more specific, both are fine) lead change the status quo, and why that's good or bad. You need offense at the end of the round, and you also need to weigh impacts *against* the other impacts in the round (not just: "this outweighs"). If both teams are weighing, but going for different mechanisms, I need clear reasons to prefer one weighing mechanism over the other. Please spend time on this, because if it comes down to scope vs. magnitude I don't really know what you want me to do.

Terminalize your impacts! if there isn't a clear reason why to prefer a clear weighing mechanism, I probably will vote on whichever impacts I think are better terminalized (ex: if "global warming" outweighs on scope, but disease outweighs on magnitude because it kills people, and "global warming" isn't terminalized, I'll probably vote for disease because you show me how it affects people, while the other team doesn't).

At the end of the round, I'll vote on the easiest out: conceded arguments that are extended with warrants and weighed impacts, or whichever side does a better job of answering their opponent's responses and then extending their arguments.

Theory:

theory is fun. I know friv theory is popular, but i think it's a waste of time, and I have a lot of homework to do so i will probably be annoyed if you spend a lot of time on something like shoes theory. That being said, if you win it I will vote for you, I will just also be annoyed.

I evaluate theory first because the impacts are pre-fiat.

Please read your interpretation twice, so that I can get it on my flow.

please justify why i should evaluate theory based off competing interpretations vs. reasonability

Kritiks:

I like Kritiks, but don't assume that I can/will fill in warrants for you. My understanding of critical literature is relatively limited (I've read some Marx, Bentham, Benjamin, Adorno, Baudrillard, etc.), so just make sure that you're explaining things well, and that you have warrants for the claims that you make on any level of the K. Other stuff:

I am okay with K affs if that's your jam, but I'm not as good at evaluating them as I am at evaluating Kritikal negs.

If your K is complicated, it's probably good for everyone in the round if you read a brief thesis that summarizes your argument so I know (and your opponents know) what's going to happen in-round.

Links of omission are links if and only if you tell me specifically how omission reifies or strengthens the system you seek to critique. (ex: "misidentifying the root cause" is only a link if you tell me how misidentification does xyz to strengthen the system by masking how it causes harm or something like that)

perms are a test of competition. If you have stuff built into your K about why the other team can't perm, please provide warrants (ex: "no perms in a methods debate" is not a warrant -- you have to explain why there are no perms in a methods debate)

have structure in your K, so: thesis, framework, links/harms, impacts, alternative/advocacy, and solvency.

abt me:

Background:

I did Classic debate in Minnesota during my freshman year of high school, which is genuinely the most lay form of debate ever. I then transitioned to Public Forum for my remaining 3 years of high school debate, but I was only really good for the last two years. I did National Circuit PF, qualified and competed at 2018 nationals (went 7-5, didn't break, nothing special) and went to ToC in 2019, last year (again, didn't break, nothing to see here lol). I debated for cal parli last year, and i am a coach at CHS.

Good luck, and happy debating!

Hey everyone! :) My name's Vidushee and my pronouns are she/her/hers. I am a second-year at UC Berkeley and an assistant coach for Berkeley High School. During high school, I competed for Irvington for 4 years and some of the highlights from my debate career were: three-time TOC qualifier, state qualifier, semis at Cal Parli, semis at Stephen Stewart Invitational, etc.

General notes:

- From David Gomez Siu's paradigm: "Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. Also just as important, if not more - if you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). I am an empathetic judge; my threshold for voting on that theory is based on how much abuse is present to me, and trust me when I say I usually know when people are being abusive in round. But I'm not perfect nor can I see all forms of violence, so, help me help you make sure that teams who read abusive and violent arguments lose the round. Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Ignoring them / deliberate misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people in any sense / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab."

- I'm usually tech over truth unless someone is being problematic in round.

- I appreciate weighing arguments, collapsing (especially in the rebuttal speeches), IMPACTING, and being organized/sign-posting throughout the debate!

- Tag-teaming is fine but I only flow what the speaker says. This means that if your partner is tagging for you, then you have to repeat what they said in order for me to write it down and evaluate it.

- I don't like intervening in debates unless it's absolutely necessary so if you're going to be reading a blippy argument that calls from judge intervention, I probably won't buy it. If you do want me to intervene, make sure to explicitly JUSTIFY it.

Speed:

- I can flow moderately fast speed, but if you aren't clear I likely won't be able to understand you. If you want to go extremely fast then please make sure you're clear. I will tell you to slow or clear if I can't understand you, and if you choose not to, then I won't flow what you're saying.

- Also from David's paradigm: "If you are using speed to exclude your opponents from the round and/or refuse to make your speed accessible to the other team, I will not hesitate to vote on theory against it. Inclusivity is important. Interps/texts twice, please. I will almost 100% of the time ask for a text. PLEASE HAVE ONE WRITTEN FOR ME AND YOUR OPPONENTS."

Case:

- I loved case debate, so I prefer it, and I appreciate unique/interesting arguments that go beyond just general links and blocks of uniqueness that can be recycled for all of your rounds.

- Please make sure to pay particular attention to weighing, impacting, and signposting here because a messy case debate isn't fun for anyone!

- I prefer if you cross-apply certain arguments after explaining why they're relevant in a new part of the flow rather than repeating the same things over and over again.

- I'm fine with basically any CPs but please don't be annoying about small things like funding, time frame, consultation, etc because all that does is take away from the quality of the debate (unless it's a legitimate issue, of course). Also, PICs are cool. :)

Theory/Topicality:

- I ran and debated all kinds of theory and topicality so I'm familiar with most arguments and I think that they can definitely be useful in round.

- I don't think that trying to win on frivolous theory is a good debate strategy, especially if you're running it against a team that's inexperienced in answering it. However, if both teams like debating with lots of shells and are comfortable answering them, then that works for me too!

- I default to competing interpretations, but if you want me to vote on reasonability please give me a clear definition of what that means and reason to do so.

- I will vote on potential abuse if the argument is articulated well but I prefer if there's proven abuse.

- I don't have a preference for either fairness or education; it really just depends on which one is argued better.

- If you want me to drop the debater and not the argument then you need to give me a strong reason to do so, otherwise I will default to dropping the argument.

- RVIs are fine, they just need to be articulated and argued well.

- Remember to weigh the theory and tell me how to evaluate it in relation to other arguments, whether that be compared to case, Ks, other theory, etc.

Kritiks:

- I didn't really read Ks when I was debating, but I've hit and listened to enough of them to know that most people don't really understand the literature that they're talking about. That being said, however, I'll evaluate them if they're read.

- If you use a K to exclude someone from the round, I will NOT hesitate to drop you.

- Performance-based Ks are fine, but I never read one myself and I've only ever hit one before.

- I really don't like K affs unless there's a really good reason for you to do so (which obviously needs to be articulated in the PMC).

- I'm probably not the best judge to read super confusing or high-level Ks on because I might get confused, but if you think you can explain them well, it should be fine!

Some parting thoughts, that were also taken from David's paradigm:

"Be a civil and respectful human being and we'll have a great debate.

Let me know if there is anything I can do to make the debate space more inclusive for you! I am more than happy to stall the round a little if talking through non-debate related things makes you more relaxed and able to compete at your best. If I have done something that you find problematic or has made the space harmful for anyone, please do not hesitate to either let me know or let the tournament know so that I can fix it for future rounds."

Please feel free to reach out to me via email (vidusheemishra@berkeley.edu), Facebook, etc. for anything at all! Debate was a huge part of my high school experience and I'm very familiar with the feeling of not knowing anyone on the circuit or having a coach to ask for help, so I'm more than happy to help you out in any way that I can! :)

*Small note about my judging history: I don't always vote aff but that's how my ballot ended up being at the SCU 2020 Invitational, so don't worry about that.

4/8/2022 Update: I haven't judged tech debate in a while so I'm not as used to it as I used to be, so take that as you will.

TL;DR

Debate is a game. Run whatever you want, just win it on the flow. Hit me with your new K, some frivolous theory that you’re worried other judges won’t buy, or literally anything else. Speaks based on execution of strategy.

Background

I'm a recent grad of UC Berkeley who debated in NPDA (tech parli), and now I coach the college team Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley, as well as the high school team at Campolindo HS. My partner Ryan Rashid and I won all three nats in NPDA my junior year, but I have next to no experience outside of parli (just some high school PF and lay LD), so I'm relatively unfamiliar with LD and policy norms. I did and teach pretty much all the stylistic things—equal amount of case, theory, and Ks. I love writing K links, collapsing to tix/elections DAs, and prepping clever T shells courtesy of shoddy resolutions. (The last one is kind of a joke, but also not really.) Point is, I have no preference for what you read, please just do what you're best at. I'd rather see a good K debate with quality clash than a bad case debate, and vice versa.

General note: My philosophy on debate has been primarily shaped by Trevor Greenan, Brian Yang, Ryan Rashid, June Dense, Will White, and Lila Lavender.

Kritiks

- If you're in a hurry you can skip this section—read whatever K you want lol, I don't pick favorites

- My background in academics and debate leans slightly more toward sociology than pomo. I've taken courses (and written Ks) about critical refugee studies, settler colonialism, anthropocentrism, etc., but have yet to truly grasp more than the barest bones of Bataille, for example. That being said, I definitely have experience with pomo—I've read/collapsed to Buddhism, Barad, Foucault, Nietzsche, etc. and competed against Lacan more times than I can count (shout out to the Rice team for that one). So feel free to read pomo if that's your thing, just be a tad gentler with me and don't assume I've read/heard allll the terminology before

- I'm a hoe for really well-warranted links that are specific to the aff and have imbedded DAs/solvency deficits. Also detailed and specific reasons why you solve the aff (if that's an arg you like to go for), either in the impacts or on the alt

- Theses can be helpful for more complex Ks, but def not necessary for your generic cap shell. I often write Ks that draw from multiple lit bases, and for me, a thesis creates a more cohesive story for something that can be kind of frankenstein in nature

Theory

- I love theory. I've been told I have a low threshold for frivolous theory (probably a consequence of too many rounds with Ryan and Brian), but my favorite is topicality, or any other interps that are very specific to the resolution/Aff. If it's clear that your interp had to be written during the 2 minutes before the LOC, that's my jam. Ofc you can read generics too, I'll just be slightly more bored and slightly less impressed

- MO and PMR theory will be an uphill battle with me, the latter most of all because it can't be contested by the other team, which makes my job so very hard, and I am lazy. But if the abuse is truly egregious and didn't occur until the MG/block, or if it's a matter of rhetorical violence, read the new arg and I'll do my best to evaluate it. But please weigh the new shell against the other team's remaining offense

- MG theory is fine, I read it all the time, but I'm also comfortable rejecting it if the Neg wins arguments for why it's bad or in-evaluable

- I don't need proven abuse under competing interps (it's about what your interp justifies, not what you actually did)

- Text vs. spirit of the interp should be debated in-round, and I'll evaluate under whichever is won. If somehow it's relevant but completely unmentioned by either team, I'll default to text over spirit

- I default to competing interpretations, but I'll use reasonability if you win args as to why I should AND if you have a briteline for it, cuz I don't feel like intervening. For example, a briteline (that I think works relatively well) is that I should evaluate whether the aff interp is good or bad based on all the offense-defense arguments read about it, and decide theory based on that, regardless of whether there's a counter-interp text. You could have a different briteline, but either way, explicitly tell me what it is, because "evaluate theory using reasonability" means different things to different people. I would prefer not to treat it as just a gut check, but if you don't define it, that's what I'll assume you mean

- I think theory is an RVI if and only if you tell me that it is, provide warrants, and then win that arg

- I default to drop the arg, although drop the arg sometimes = drop the debater, like for T. But obviously, reading "drop the debater" with even just one uncontested warrant is sufficient for me to change this default

- I didn't do circuit LD, so explain slightly more to me the definitions/implications of buzzwords that aren't as common in parli. The best example I can think of is semantics vs. pragmatics: I NOW know what they both mean, but I did NOT a year ago, and that made it difficult for me to render a decision in favor of blippy semantics first args in NPDI finals. Still read arguments like that if you want, just define and implicate them out, don't assume that I know all the things

Case

- I enjoy niche disads, like a hyper-specific tix scenario, or a biod disad about endangered turtles that live near where the plan happens. These can be hard (or impossible) to find though, depending on the res, so don't sweat

- I also definitely understand the value of tried and tested generics - I read a lot of backlash DAs and consult CPs, and inv con, so it's okay to read that too. Read whatever you think is strategic for the rez

- I enjoy technical CP debate. PICs are fun unless I'm read a shell that tells me otherwise. Same thing for consult CPs, delay CPs, agent CPs, etc.

- Perms on CPs. Make them. Any perm is fine, unless the other team gives me a reason why it's not

- In the absence of explicit magnitude/probability/timeframe/etc. weighing, I default to using only strength of link. In other words, I’m more inclined to vote for arguments that are dropped or comparatively under-covered, but you can prevent this by telling me why your impact is high [magnitude/probability/etc.], and why [magnitude/probability/etc.] comes first

- I love clever case strats that exploit a mistake the other team has made, like collapsing to a straight turn or a double turn. Don't be afraid to do something "risky" like that, I can follow along

Everything Else

Here's some miscellaneous beliefs that I have about debate and will utilize by default; however, I'm willing to evaluate otherwise, even in the opposite direction, as long as you give me sufficient reason to in-round:

- I think unconditionality means you *technically* have to defend the advocacy throughout the round, but that could include conceding defense so the sheet doesn't matter anymore

- I believe that perms are a test of competition, not an advocacy

- I'm not game for shadow extensions that aren't at least mentioned in the MG/MO, even if the argument is conceded. In other words, I think the member speeches should have to extend every piece of offense their team intends to collapse to

- I will do my best to protect during the LOR and PMR, but I don't trust myself to catch everything and neither should you, so call points of order please. I'll rule on all of them immediately, to the best of my ability, because you usually need to know my stance for the sake of the rest of the speech

- New weighing is fine in the LOR/PMR, but make sure it's actually weighing, not sequencing or anything else. E.g., saying "fairness is more important than education because debate could survive without education, but not without fairness" is acceptable weighing, but saying "fairness is more important than education because it's the internal link to education and skews the round" is a sequencing argument that should be read before the rebuttal speech

- I think condo's p dope, so run however many off you want, but also I'll drop you if the other team wins a condo bad shell

- I think dispo is condo in a suit, but if you can get a we meet out of it, go off sis. And if you think they might use their dispo status to meet your condo shell, preempt that in the violation please

- Presumption flips neg, unless the neg reads a CP/alt, in which case it flips aff

- I find “truth over tech” arguments incoherent and self-refuting; “truth” in debate is only ever arrived at through evaluation of the flow (or judge intervention, which I will not do), so in order to convince me that truth outweighs tech, you’d have to win that claim via the tech flow…which seems to indicate that tech still > truth

- I will drop your ass for racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. rhetoric or behavior

- Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. [Added March 29th, 2023.] Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- To pick you up on an IVI, I need reasons why that IVI outweighs all the impacts your opponents are going for

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.

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).

My name is Leo Mutarelli, and I am a former HS Parliamentary Debater.

I do not believe I have any particular judging preferences which would strike you as abnormal; however, I'll briefly go over some of my preferences.

Fact Checking: I did Parli for 4 years and I understand Parliamentary debaters can often times have a unique relationship with the truth. With that being said, I will not generally fact check unless a piece of information becomes so important that the result of the entire debate is contingent on the veracity of the fact.

Theory: I am perfectly fine with theory arguments; however, I have a general dislike for arguments that seem pre-baked.

Spreading: I cannot state in strong enough professional terms how much I despise spreading. Do with that information what you will.

Speed: I understand that many of you will have a lot to get through, and I have no problem with you talking fast in order to do so.

Disclosures: Provided the tournament does not have any specific regulations barring judges from disclosing, I am happy to disclose.

This list is by no means an exhaustive list of all my preferences, and if you have questions regarding my preferences, I am happy to discuss them with you once both teams are in the round.

Welcome! I hope your soul is doing well! Debate is a beautiful thing! I'm so excited to hear all the cool things you come up with!

MOST IMPORTANT: this is high school debate (maybe middle school). your wins and losses do not matter. the only thing that matters is learning and enjoying yourself. so be RESPECTFUL. don't be exclusionary. learn as much as you can. have fun!!!!

TLDR: weigh, good strategy, run what you want, be inclusive, be kind

Me: 4 years of HS parli for Bishop O'Dowd (NPDI& stanford sems, TOC octos), on my 5th year of coaching/teaching (camp, MVLA, Menlo School), considered myself a flay (comfortable w parents and experienced judges) debater. Medium-flow judge? (I guess you can decide that for yourself)

Case (Contentions, a plan, a counter plan... not Kritiks or Theory): I love a good case debate. your links are prob the weakest part of your case, so bolster those a bunch. terminalize impacts (why do I care about the economy or climate change? prob bc they relate to death and dehumanization). Ok with tricky CPs if you know your opponents and know they can engage, be prepared for the theory debate. If you don't weigh your impacts (probability, timeframe, magnitude, reversibility) I will cry. and I'm an ugly crier

Theory (what you run to argue about the rules of debate, trying to stop debaters from being unfair in rounds... or to be silly) : i love theory debates. If you're running theory and the other team doesn't know what theory is, EXPLAIN IT!! I love when teams help other teams learn!

Ks (Kritiks!): I am in no way a K debater's dream judge, but I do love hearing them! I 200% have not read your lit, so EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. If your opponent is confused you better be answering a bunch of questions. try to make your K accessible.

Tricks: If a 5 year old can't understand your argument, I won't either. WTF is a grain of sand. I don't know. People have spent hours trying to explain this stuff to me and I STILL don't get it, so you prob won't be able to make it make sense in 8 mins. But good luck, you do you

Style: do whatever makes you most comfortable. stand up, sit down, do a little dance, take your shoes off. I don't care. My speaks are on strategic moves, fun arguments (I like some passion too). Strategy is VERY important and is probably the fastest way to my ballot- by the 2nd constructive, you should have a clear story/ start weighing. PLEASE signpost (number things, tell me when you're moving on to the next advantage). I don't go below 28 unless you intentionally spread someone out of the round or say something offensive. I <3 jokes

Speed: Medium speed is fine. Don't spread (when ppl talk SUPER fast), but you can talk pretty fast. If I can't understand you I will yell clear/slow and if you don't I will put my pen down/ stop typing. Go at a speed that makes the round accessible to everyone (even if that's slower than your ideal). If someone yells slow and you don't slow down I will be very annoyed. On that note- advocate for yourself! ask your opponents to slow down! I vote very quickly on justified speed theory (what you run when someone has spoken so quickly that you're shut out of the round).

Call the POO! (I will do my best to protect on my own but if it's sketchy I prefer you call it)

If you have debate anxiety or are stressed, LET ME KNOW! I've been there! the panic attacks? Nausea? want to cry? You're still an amazing debater (I was too!). we can spend a min or two before the round talking about why learning is most important, maybe doing some breathing, mini dance party if that will help you. You deserve to be in this round as much as anyone else does!

I AM SO GLAD YOU ARE HERE! I AM SO GLAD YOU DO DEBATE!! YOU'RE GONNA DO GREAT AND LEARN SO MUCH!!

in the words of the wonderful Riley Shahar -"If the round, or this space, is inaccessible for you for any reason at any point, please let me know and I will do whatever possible to help."

I tried my best to explain everything, but if you don't know one of the terms in this paradigm, shoot me an email! Parli jargon is weird and I know it can feel hard to ask what things mean! RFD? POI? RVI? MOI? TTYLXOX? what's with all these acronyms?!? (cc your partner or another adult and include a link to your favorite cat video)! aldenor@stanford.edu

Hi! I'm Gratia (she/her). I'm currently a sophomore at UCLA. I did parli at Bishop O'Dowd, where I competed for 4 years and coached novices as a junior and senior.

tldr: I'm down to evaluate any debate but am more familiar with theory and case than Ks. With that being said, I'll try my best to evaluate whatever debate you want to have.

General:

You can read any arguments (as long as they're not racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic, or violent in any other way) but I can't promise that I'll know your lit base so explain them well. I love theory. Please use impact calc! Framing and layering are/should be your best friends. I love clean collapses. You can talk fast but please don't spread, it's been a while since I've really been involved in debate.

Debate is for YOU (the debaters) so I want you to have whatever debate you want. Please don't exclude your opponents or read harmful arguments in the process of doing so, but other than that I will listen to any debate. If your opponents say/do anything that makes you feel unsafe or is violent I am more than happy to do whatever I can to help.

If you have any questions about anything here or the round feel free to ask or email me (gratiaorafferty@gmail.com)!

TECH>TRUTH

Case:

Please please please have warrants and explain why they're important, don't just read a quote. Be sure to do impact calc in your last speech AND tell me why I should prefer the impacts you have over the impacts your opponents have (ex: why magnitude matters more than probability or vice versa).

CPs are fine, but please spend time actually explaining them (don't just read the CP text and move on). I also love theory so I'm willing to listen to CP theory.

I love nuanced and specific link and internal link scenarios!! If you have some and use warrants within them I will be so grateful. I'm also a big fan of good brink scenarios.

Theory:

By far my favorite argument as a debater, I'm willing to listen to any theory argument (some of my favorites to read were framework and no neg fiat if that gives any context). Please explain how you access fairness/education and do weighing within the theory debate!!

I default to competing interpretations and drop the debater unless you make arguments for something else. If you're going for reasonability please provide a brightline. I think RVIs are okay if you have sufficient justifications and can respond to your opponent's RVIs bad arguments.

I'm okay with conditionality but also willing to hear condo bad and vote on it if done well.

Ks:

I am the least experienced with Ks but ran a few and hit a fair amount (and loved reading framework). I probably don't know much about your lit base (unless it's cap or set col) so you have to explain your arguments. That being said, I'm definitely willing to vote on Ks. Take questions!! None of us are going to have fun if the other team can't engage in the debate because they don't understand your argument. Ks and K lit can be confusing and isn't accessible to every team so if you don't take any of your opponents' questions I will give you low speaks (and I honestly probably have the same clarifying questions as your opponents).

Speaks:

I don't give speaks based on how "pretty" you speak, but rather based on your strategy. For example: if you have really great links in the PMC/LOC, cover your bases well in the MG, collapse well in the block, or give a clean collapse in the PMR, I will give you high speaks.

I will give low speaks if you don't slow/clear when asked, say anything violent/ offensive, or otherwise make the debate unsafe and inaccessible.

please be on time

yes I would like to be on the email chain max.o_reilly@tufts.edu

This is a slightly altered version of Tom Perret's paradigm

1. Please signpost. None of the paradigm matters if I can't flow.

2. I'm super annoying about link extensions. You can't just frontline and move on. As long as you take the time to fully explain your argument (and the evidence that proves it) in summary, final focus, and - to a certain extent - second rebuttal, you'll be fine.

3. Weigh comparatively. Weigh your turns too. Why is your impact larger, more urgent, than your opponents'? I don't think the innate probability of an impact is a reason why you outweigh; if you've won a link to the impact, it is probable. Probability impact weighing is just a lazy way to add random defense in summary and final focus.

4. Final focus and summary should mirror each other. This applies mostly to link arguments and impact extensions. New weighing in 1st Final Focus is fine, I guess.

5. Frontline in second rebuttal or it's dropped.

6. Generally, everything is better if you read cut cards.

7. If you paraphrase, have cut cards, NOT URLs or random hundred-page PDFs. Otherwise, I will strike it and feel more inclined to drop you.

8. I default to presuming neg because if neither team has offense then I guess I'll stick with the status quo.

9. Disclose on the Wiki for a boost in speaker points - here is a tutorial.

10. I won't be paying attention to cross ex. If anything important happens during it bring it up in speech. If it turns into a yelling match I'll get sad and lower the speaker points of the rude team (or both teams if it's two-sided tbh please chill).

11. Run whatever progressive args you want. this being said:

a. I have a pretty decent handle on theory.

b. I ran some progressive args, frameworks, etc. in my day so feel free to do these but make sure you explain them very well and make them comparative and then I can properly weigh them

c. Please acknowledge that your team may have many more resources than other teams and which may lead other teams to not understand the progressive arguments you are running on them. if you are running theory, Ks, etc. on novices or small schools that do not understand them, I will feel very comfortable dropping you the second you read the off.

if you have questions

email me max.o_reilly@tufts.edu or Max O'Reilly on Facebook

READ JUST BOLD IF IN RUSH

Competed at NPTE my first year out and was pretty techy in high school, but have been out of debate for three years, so my debate opinions are likely to be bad. My partner did LD so that has heavily shaped my view of debate.

TLDR: ANYTHING IS FINE, but I have unconventional opinions.

Technical Issues:

• Speed: I can kinda handle speed.

• Tagging: Tag arguments. Conversely, it is insufficient to blip “potential vs. articulated abuse” and expect me to fill in the gaps. I will have to recall what that means, which will negatively impact my flowing.

• Jargon: I have no idea how much the playing field has changed, but I will likely not understand most critical theory or technical jargon absent explanation. I vaguely recall that I was a cap and buddhism debater.

• Extensions: Arguments can only be accessed if they were at least blanket extended by the previous speaker. The exception is for the PMR to access an argument, it must have been explicitly extended by the MG.

Bottom Line - I will explicitly intervene on an argument if and only if there is a logical contradiction and there is no reason why I should accept contradictions, or there is zero comparison between arguments.

• Ex. Suppose the 2AC reads “X occurs due to Plan,” but on a separate sheet reads “Plan immediately makes X impossible.” Even if neither team notices this in-round, I will simply pick the worst of the three possibilities (X occurs, X is impossible, no argument was read regarding X) and use that to decide the round.

• Ex. Contrast this with if the 1NC reads a K but the 2NC performatively links back into the K, and neither team points it out. There I will assume the perfcon has no bearing on the round.

Argument Preferences:

Presumption:

• I like thinking in terms of burdens assuming nothing kritikal happened.

• (If PM does NOT read a K)

• Aff Burden: Prove the resolution is true by way of a (topical) plan

• Neg Burden: None

• (If LOC reads CPs)

• Aff Burden (NIB): Prove the resolution is true by way of a (topical) plan

• Neg Burden (Sufficient, not necessary): Prove CPs > Plan. Prove CPs compete with Plan.

• (If MO kicks at least one CP)

• Aff Burden (NIB): Prove the resolution is true by way of a (topical) plan

• Neg Burden (Sufficient, not necessary): Prove whatever’s left is > Plan. Prove whatever’s left competes with Plan.

• THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME WAY TO FRAME THE ROUND (e.g. net benefits/K framing). If no one has established a role of the judge by the end of the round, I default to burdens and will drop the Aff for failing to meet their NIB.

• Obviously if you read a K out of the PMC, the burdens are no longer relevant and I will vote based on whatever framework is won. Burdens are just here to make my presumption decisions easier for case debates.

Theory:

• Any theory position is fine. Any theory framing is fine. MG theory is fine.

• Absent any sequencing claim, I default to ignoring theory. I default to dropping the argument so long as you articulate a priori. I am hoping that either your theory shell is strong enough that dropping the argument (e.g. the argument being dropped is their advocacy) is sufficient for you to win, or you care enough about fairness to explain why I should drop the team.

• I default to Reasonability, meaning if you can prove there is little to no strength of link between the interp and the impacts, then that suffices to discard theory. However, I would prefer it theory positions were viewed through competing interps.

Framework:

• I am generally most convinced by Truisms, TVA, Switch-side as framework level responses to the K aff.

Topicality:

• In a pure case debate, I believe Topicality requires neither impacts nor framing (e.g. education, fairness, drop the team, potential/articulated abuse, etc.). This is because unless I’m convinced otherwise (by way of framework), the burden is for the Aff to prove the resolution has a true model (good plan). If the negative proves the Aff is not topical, that suffices to drop the Aff.

Case:

• Read framing. Weigh impacts. Compare strength of link.

• Conditionality: Completely fine, but I adjust the burdens accordingly. I would love to see more AD CPs.

• Perm the CP when applicable.

Kritiks:

• I was a K debater, but you’ll likely have to dumb it down for me.

• Have a FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts, Alt, Alt Solvency. Topic-Specific links are preferred. FW should have a role of the critic with reasons to prefer.

• YOU MUST EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN K AND THEORY/T WHEN RELEVANT.

• PIKs are acceptable. They are either so silly that you will lose regardless, or so ingenious that you will win regardless.

Experience:

I competed in Parliamentary Debate for a couple of years in high school and now am a third-year member for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley. I love debate for its creativity, diversity of arguments, and critical thinking.

Quick Notes:

- I will flow your round. Unless otherwise convinced, I will vote for the team that has the most potent and persuasive offense on the flow

- Please, please, please collapse on the negative to one position. I have made mistakes before on the flow in messy rounds when the negative does not collapse and it makes me sad. I do not actively seek out judge intervention, but it might happen when the flow gets too messy.

- Also, please explain the implications of you buzz words/taglines. Recently, I have found myself voting against technical debate (much to my chagrin) because I do not think buzz words have been adequately contextualized to the round. It is much like fleshing out an impact. I want to see the entire reasoning behind the argument (e.g. it is not sufficient to say "perm" without a perm text or it is not sufficient to say "frames them out" without specific interactive analysis).

- It is the burden of the affirmation to do something besides the status quo (make offense); if neither team has offense by end of round I will most likely begrudgingly vote negative

- Default Roll of Ballot (ROB): Vote for the team with the best post-fiat policy option

- Default Roll of Judge (ROJ): Vote for the team that best functions under the ROB

- Default hierarchy of arguments: theory > kritik > case (but again, this is all determined by how the debate round is framed and is thus highly variable)

- Default framing of impacts: magnitude > probability > timeframe (yet again, this is all determined by how the debate round is framed and is thus highly variable). I also will default to proximal impacts first. Also, if I perceive rhetorical violence in round against me or a participant, not only will I dock speaks but I will also (probably) vote you down.

- My default treatment of permutations are as tests of competition and not advocacies

- My default framework of theory is competing interpretations. I will also default to potential abuse before proven abuse.

- I protect against new arguments in the final two speeches

- If I say "clear" it is because I cannot understand you. If I say "slow" it is because I cannot flow as fast as you are talking. Feel free not to change your behavior, but be wary that I may miss some of your arguments (and I might consider arguments later as shadow extensions to my flow and disregard them)

On the meat of debate:

Plan: Please have an explicit text and solvency; the more clear, the better. Reading plan text twice is a smart strategy if one decides to spread.

Advantage/Disadvantage: The more fleshed out the better. If it is separated into uniqueness, links, and impacts, it makes my job much easier. Be sure uniqueness is flowing in the right direction for your links, the links are sturdy, and the impacts are terminated (well-developed).

Theory: When running theory, be organized (interpretation, violation, standards, and voters or some equally viable system). I am okay with voters being cross-applied. Be careful with the wordings of your interpretations. Responses to theory should be organized ("we meets," counter interpretations, counter standards, and standard defense or some equally viable system).

Kritiks: Kritiks are the heart and joy of debate. That said, if you read an affirmative kritik, be sure you have a clear out against theory arguments. On negative kritiks, make sure that you have a clear framework, links, impact, and alternative or equally viable structure. If some parts are missing, it will be difficult to win the kritik. (Though, I may be a bit of a hack on critical arguments, I will still try to limit the backfilling I do).

Counterplan (CP): Make sure the CP is well fleshed out and explicit on why the affirmative cannot permutate (textual competition is a weak argument and not very convincing; try to look for functional competition or net benefits to the CP).

Speaker Points: They will probably be between 26-30

PARLI

3x National Champion in 2021 (NPTE, NPDA, and NRR)

- I don't care about persuasion, I give better speaks for technical strategy and execution.

- I would rather you debate what you're most comfortable with, rather than over-adapting and reading something you aren't as familiar with

- I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

Other Events

Background

I did high school LD for 3 years, and now I compete in NPDA at Berkeley. TL;DR, do whatever you want and I'll vote for whoever wins on the flow.

General Issues

- I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the worse argument if it’s won on the flow (i.e. tech > truth).

- I think condo is good, so I'm perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies. That being said, I'm also more than happy to vote on condo bad if you win it.

- I don't believe in shadow extensions.

Theory

- I like theory

- I default to competing interps, drop the debater on T (drop the arg on most other theory), and no RVIs

- Weigh between your standards for me (i.e. why does limits outweigh ground)

Advantage/DA/CP

- I don't keep up with the news at all, so I'm very uninformed on current events. That being said, I don't think that really matters for LARP debates

- Have good warrant comparison and impact calc

- Overviews are greatly appreciated, especially if the round is messy

- No preference on CPs; I'll evaluate PICs, consult, alt actor, etc., but I'll also evaluate theory against them

Kritiks

- I'm familiar with more structural/material Ks, as opposed to pomo. If you're unsure about whether I'll know something, just assume I don't and explain well (overviews, please)

- I like seeing good links that are actually specific to the aff and have imbedded offense

- I have a high threshold for reject alts and links of omission

- K-affs are fine, but if you don't answer fairness skews eval properly, I probably won't vote for you

Phil

- I've been out of the activity for a while, and phil debates are non-existent in parli, so I'm definitely not up-to-date on any of the norms. But if it's your thing, I'll definitely try my hardest to properly evaluate it -- same with tricks

- Weigh between violations of the standard

I am a former high school parliamentary debater who is currently in college. I will vote for any argument as long as you give me a good enough reason to do so. Just make sure you understand the arguments you read because if you don't I won't be as convinced. You can speak as fast as you'd like. Be respectful to your opponents (that should go without a saying). Default to K > T > case unless you tell me otherwise. Weigh impacts and layers of the round.

Like many of my favorite args, this paradigm is plagiarized from Jason Barton and Sonia Torres.

Background: I debated for four years on the NPDA/NPTE circuit with Rice University (2017-2021). Although my heart lies with <3case debate<3, I've spent much of my collegiate debate career reading critical arguments on the affirmative and negative, including Baudrillard, Lacan, and CLS (then spending like 30 seconds on case). I'm pretty familiar with most critical literature read in debate, especially postmodern stuff. My pronouns are she/her.

General: Consider reading trigger warnings or disclosing, and keep in mind how your words can affect the people in the room. If you're comfortable with it, let me know how I can help make this space more accessible for you.

I will generally evaluate arguments in this order: 1) conceded arguments with in-round framing and weighing 2) contested arguments with superior warrants, in-round framing, and weighing, and 3) conceded arguments with minimal weighing or clash. Quality > quantity.

Warrant your claims (I will not fill out your impact scenario for you). Speed is fine. I'm inclined to view root cause claims with skepticism.

K Affs: My partner and I read K affs and rejected the topic a decent amount, so read whatever you want in front of me. That said, I prefer affirmatives related to the topic, and I find T much more convincing when K affs don't mention the topic.

Theory: I don't really enjoy evaluating rounds with multiple theory sheets. I do like clever standards and interps (rather than the boilerplate shells). If you are collapsing to theory, please try to collapse clearly/cleanly (instead of, for example, creating new standards in the block or avoiding a comparison of your standards with counter-standards, etc.). I default to competing interps and drop the team. Tell me how your theory should be sequenced against your other off-case positions. I'm sorry, I also like spec.

CPs/Ks: I think condo and severance are probably bad, and I think delay/PICs/actor CPs/etc. are probably good, but I'm very receptive to theory indicating otherwise. I like specific examples on solvency, especially if solving the aff is part of the debate. Make your K links specific.

DAs: I like DAs with precise uniqueness stories and specific links to the affirmative. I like arguments from the affirmative about how the DA links to the CP/K. If it's a case turn, just read it as a case turn. Econ DAs are boring.

Perms: I default to the perm as a test of competition and not an advocacy, unless told otherwise.

- 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!

There is no grace time in parliamentary debate!! I stop flowing when your speech time has ended.

When I judge in person, I'm usually waking up like 4 hours earlier than normal, so I tend to yawn a lot during debates. Sorry if it's distracting, and I promise I am not getting bored or falling asleep!

General

These are all ultimately preferences. You should debate the way you want to debate.

For online debate: put texts in the chat for every advocacy/ROTB/interp. Texts are binding.

I'm okay with speed and will slow/clear you if necessary. If you don't slow for your opponents, I will drop you.

I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.

Please give content warnings as applicable. The more the merrier.

A safe debate is my primary consideration as a judge. Do not misgender your opponents. I will not hesitate to intervene against any rhetorically violent arguments.

If any debater requests it, I will stop a round and escalate the situation to Tab, tournament equity, and your coaches. I will also do this in the absence of a request if I feel like something unsafe has occurred and it is beyond my jurisdiction/capacity to deal with it.

Case

Weigh, interact with your opponent's arguments, and signpost!! I prefer when your weighing is contextualized to the argument you want me to vote on, rather than across-the-board generalizations of preferring probability or magnitude. Unwarranted links have zero probability even if they are conceded. Cross-applications need to be contextualized to the new argument.

All types of counterplans are game and so is counterplan theory. Perms are a test of competition. I have no idea what a neg perm is, so if you read one, you have to both justify why the negative is entitled to a perm and also what a neg perm means in the context of aff/neg burdens.

I would prefer it if you cited your sources unless the tournament explicitly prohibits you from doing so. If there is an evidence challenge that affects my ballot, I will vote before I check your evidence, and if I find intentional evidence fabrication, I will communicate that information to tab.

Theory/Topicality

Theory is cool! Please have a clear interpretation and have a text ready. I am happy to vote on whatever layering claims you make regarding theory vs. Ks. In the absence of layering, I will default to theory a priori.

I won't vote on theory shells that police the clothing, physical presentation, or camera usage (for online debate) of debaters. I will evaluate neg K's bad theory, disclosure, and speed theory as objectively as possible, but I don't really like these arguments and probably hack against them. Aff K's bad/T-USfg is fine. I will drop you for reading disclosure in the form of consent/FPIC theory. I'll vote on all other theory shells.

I default to competing interpretations, potential abuse > proven abuse, and drop the argument. To vote for reasonability, I need a clear brightline on what is reasonable. I am neutral on fairness vs. education. I'm neutral on RVIs, but I'll vote for them if you win them. I am good with conditional advocacies, and also good with hearing conditionality theory.

Kritiks

KvK is currently my favorite type of debate to judge. Rejecting the resolution, performance Ks, and framework theory are all fine with me. Please read a role of the ballot. If you are interested in learning more about K debate, please email me and I will send you any resources/answer any questions you may have.

Tech v. Truth

I default to tech over truth, but I probably lean towards truth more than your average tech judge. I'm open to arguments that say I should weigh truth over tech and disregard the flow when technical debate is sidelining disadvantaged teams. I think while technical debate can be a tool for combatting oppression in the debate space, skill at technical debate is definitely correlated with class, income, and whiteness. As such, I'm willing to hear arguments that ask me to devalue the flow in favor of solving a form of violence that has occurred in the round as a result of technical debate.

Miscellaneous

For speaker points, I give 27s as a baseline. I won't go below this unless you are violent or exclusionary. Please answer 1-2 POIs if there isn't flex.

My resting face and my frowning face are the same, and I have very expressive nonverbals– I recognize that this combo can be intimidating/confusing and I strongly urge you not to use my nonverbals as indicators of anything. I promise I don't hate you or your arguments, it's just my face!

Good luck :^)

I don't really judge anymore. If you are a debater and want to see my paradigm for some reason, email me firstname dot lastname at gmail.

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!

Judge Paradigm

TL;DR: Impact clearly to win, Magnitude > Probability > Timeframe, Tabula rasa (as much as I can be)

Background:

I’ve participated in debate for five years, parli for four. I usually run case arguments, but you can run anything you want as long as you understand it and can explain it.

Case:

I love a flow case round, but make sure to be clear with your structure. Try to number all your harms and have clear link chains that I can flow. Make sure to weigh all impacts especially in the last speech but ideally throughout, and make a choice on your collapse at the end. If you run a complicated argument please explain it as clearly as you can, and if I cannot understand what you are saying because of speech or lack of clarity, I will stop flowing. Also, please refute every level of the arguments.

Theory:

I see theory as a way to check back against real abuse in round, and as a result, I tend to have a very high threshold for friv theory.

K:

I’ve hit a decent amount of Ks so I understand the common ones. Even then, for every K please understand and explain the literature/thesis clearly and have everything structured. Please have specific links to the other sides case, and I have a higher threshold for aff Ks. Be clear in your explanations and do not try to go too fast, it is in your best interest that I understand your speech.

Weighing:

Regardless of which kind of arguments you run, make sure to have good impact framing in the last speech. I want to be able to make the decision as easy as possible without bringing my own biases into the round, and the best way to help me do that is by giving me a clear way to vote. I default to magnitude over probability but you are completely free to tell me to vote in other ways, such as on timeframe or probability or reversibility.

Have fun, be respectful! If you have any questions or want more feedback, shoot me a message on FB Messenger or email me at darshsinghania123@gmail.com.

Sidenote: if you are sexist, racist, or otherwise dehumanizing I will drop you.

My Background

I did parliamentary debate and only parliamentary debate for four years, and I mostly attended lay tournaments. I don't have any experience in policy or pofo, and I did try LD for a while, but I definitely don't think I should be judging those events. If you're in a non parli form of debate, please be patient in explaining the rules to me, and explain arguments more clearly than you normally would because I may be unfamiliar with how those arguments work. I generally like case debates, but I'm not opposed to theory if you have to run it. I don't like kritiks or abusive arguments, but I do like creative arguments that are believable.

I am currently an Economics and Public Affairs major, so I understand quite a bit about how government works, and while I try to be tabula rasa, my knowledge may bias the way I judge debate rounds. Make sure you explain all arguments clearly and correctly. I do fact check, so don't make things up.

Case

Make sure all of your points are very clear. Please organize everything into your uniqueness, links, internal links, impacts, and responses. Do not skip links. I run into a lot of debaters who just kind of assume that their plan solves without explaining or giving evidence as to why. Signpost all parts of your argument too. I should be able to figure out exactly which point you're responding to at all times. Also please terminalize your impacts. Every argument you run must have an implication and significance. If you don't explain the significance of your argument, I will have trouble weighing it in the round.

Do not make up evidence. If there is a contentious piece of evidence in the round, I will fact check it. Completely fabricating numbers or quotes will result in an immediate loss. However, reasonable paraphrasing or truncating is okay. Calculating percentages is okay (if it's done correctly).

As much as possible, refutations should be offensive. Try to do link turns more often than no links. I especially like double binds that are explained clearly. I really like interesting impact turns too, but make sure they're substantiated and don't double turn yourself.

Rebuttals

Please use voter issues in the rebuttal speeches. Do not treat it as another constructive speech and spend all your time responding to arguments unless you're the PMR and you have to. Weigh the arguments against each other, and obviously make sure the argument you're winning is given more weight. Seriously, don't try to win every argument. Find the arguments you're winning and explain why they're more important. I also like rebuttals that explain why your argument short circuits their argument. I look at probability, magnitude, and timeframe. When it comes to impact analysis, I kind of like timeframe arguments and sometimes probability arguments. I don't like magnitude arguments that are incredibly unlikely (like nuclear war), unless they can be well substantiated (like if Ukraine joins NATO). Seriously, don't run nuclear war arguments unless you have a good link scenario. Most of the time nuclear war arguments become nonunique anyways. Both sides claim the other side has nuclear war with little to no evidence, and MAD means that nuclear war probably won't happen. Both brink scenarios typically have equal chance of happening anyways.

Plans and Counterplans

I'm not very picky about plans, but they should definitely be topical. Small affs are fine, and I oftentimes finds them to be clever. Avoid extratopical plans, and make sure your plan solves. See my theory category for more information.

In general I'm fine with all types of CPs, but make sure your CP solves, is competitive, and isn't abusive. In other words, your CP alone must be better than the plan and the CP together. This can usually be done with disads to the plan. Make sure you have disads to the plan, do not simply talk about why the CP is better than the plan because that does not generate offense and does not protect against the perm.

No conditional CPs, but dispositional CPs are ok.

Consult CPs are ok as long as you give a good reason why consulting is important and prove solvency.

I'm fine with PICs, but I'll also listen to theory arguments about it. If you plan to run a PIC, be prepared to have responses to theory.

Agent/50 States CPs are fine too, but make sure you have actual evidence as to why 50 states would solve better than the federal government. If there's no good reason why a particular agent or 50 states is preferred, you'll probably lose on presumption.

Theory

Make sure you have all five parts (interp, violation, standards, voters, underview) for every theory argument. If you're missing any of them, you might as well not run theory. There is a time and place theory arguments. I don't like frivolous theory, and I probably won't buy any theory arguments that seem unnecessary. That being said, I think that theory is necessary if a plan or counterplan is confusing or abusive. If your opponents genuinely misinterpreted the resolution, run theory. Topicality and spec are oftentimes the most useful forms of theory. Oftentimes, the aff plan will be so vague that educational debate is impossible. In this case, the neg can easily win on theory.

If you're confused on what's "unnecessary." Think of it this way: if you're running theory because you want a cheap argument to beat your opponent, it's probably unnecessary. If you're running theory because your opponents genuinely did something that shouldn't be allowed, run theory. When in doubt, run theory. The worst that could happen is that you waste your time. I generally don't buy RVIs.

Also, I'm a huge fan of we meet responses to interps. It's probably the best way to quickly defeat theory.

Kritiks

If you're going to run a K please make sure you explain each part of the K clearly. I know a bit about Nietzsche, Sartre, Daoism, and Baudrillard, but that's about it. Everything else you'll have to explain to me clearly.

Misc:

Tabula rasa and tech over truth for the most part. Basically, if you drop arguments (even if they are factually wrong), I have to give that argument to your opponent. This has happened before. You can avoid this by not dropping arguments and making sure you do line by lines if you're the LOC or MG.

Hot take: I don't really care about shadow extensions, but I'm willing to listen to a point of order if the PMR does a shadow extension. For the LOR I feel like the PMR's ability to use golden turns voids the abuse of a shadow extension.

I am fine with whatever speed you want to go at, but do not try to speak so quickly that your opponents or I can't understand you. Make sure you are speaking clearly. I will say clear if you're not being clear enough. I'm fine with tag teaming, but I'll only flow what the speaker says.

I award speaker points based on how well you speak and present, not on the quality of your arguments. That being said, I will nuke speaks for a variety of reasons including but not limited to racism, sexism, and making up evidence. I think you can speak quickly and still be a good speaker.

I prefer cameras to be on while you speak so that I can more accurately judge speaker points. I do judge based on hand motions, eye contact, movement, and stuff like that. If you are able to, please turn on your camera and present your arguments to the best of your ability.

Presumption flows neg unless there is a counterplan in which case it flows aff. Please do not make me vote on presumption. You can do this by making sure your arguments are offensive and not defensive. That means if you're neg talk about why the aff is harmful and if you're aff talk about why doing nothing is harmful and how you solve for those harms. You can also avoid making me vote on presumption by weighing arguments in the rebuttal speech. Seriously, if you weigh an argument you're winning and your opponent doesn't weigh, you'll win.

There are a number of debates I've won from creatively redefining or reinterpreting the resolution. I honestly think this is necessary sometimes if the resolution is seriously skewed against you. I really like these debates, but please make sure your definition or interpretation of the resolution is valid and substantiated before using it. Just remember for any resolution, there exists some creative a path to victory. Do not give up during prep time.

My priorities for judging any debate are

1) the use of factual evidence that shows understanding of the topic.

2) clear and organized arguments.

3) each team's ability to support their value, weighing mechanism, or other framework throughout the entire debate.

4) professionalism and appropriateness.

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

CHSSA MS State Update for CX, LD, PF:

• Utilize full CX (and prep time, if necessary)
• Do evidence/warrant comparisons
• Weigh (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility)
• DON'T gender your opponents if pronouns are not disclosed in the Tab blast, speaks will significantly lower—they is fine as a neutral pronoun
• I don't flow off speech docs and I only call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. Verifying evidence ethics is your responsibility as debaters, otherwise I defer to what's on my flow.
• Please don't mention program name during introductions—entries are coded for a reason! I likely have implicit thoughts about programs as a former competitor in CFL/Calif. Coast and I hope you'll help me check back against that

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round!

A Quick Biography

Hey y'all my name is Will (he | any), I did national and local circuit LD debate in high school for 3 years, along with being my team's debate captain. Everything I know about debate was self taught or learned from my peers as our coach was not well versed in debate of any kind. Together our team managed to teach ourselves everything we needed to know about national circuit debate in order to compete. From there me and my close friend started a debate podcast dedicated to teaching small schools around the country the same information we worked to acquire.

Email

will@wtoll.com

Other References

These are the links to the paradigms of other people I've been on teams with, and other people who tend to share very similar views as I do. If you find any ambiguity in my paradigms, or have any questions about them, I tend to judge similarly to these people and so maybe something in their paradigms will put you at ease. That being said we are not the same people so do not take anything you read on their pages as a 100% given.

June Dense

Kate Marin

If you have a really serious question about my paradigms then you can email me personally before the round and I will answer them for you. I will not however give you advice on which cases you should run in front of me or what strategy I would prefer. I will simply tell you if I am or am not okay with something.

Rule of Thumb

As a general rule of thumb, the majority of my positions on judging are predicated upon the notion of debate as an intellectual challenge, and not as some puritanical sport. With that being said I don't appreciate debaters trying to win just for the sake of winning. I appreciate much more the debaters who engage in legitimately interesting intellectual discussions instead of running something abusive just to win the round. I also don't appreciate judges who have arbitrary notions about what debate "ought" to be just because that's how they grew up doing it. At the end of the day that's an appeal to tradition and a logical fallacy. If coming out of the round I feel like you made a legitimately interesting, different, or unique argument that I learned something from, then you're a lot more likely to win the round than if you tricked your opponent into oblivion.

Paradigms

For the most part I'm a pretty standard judge, no argumentation forms are off the table, but just make sure whatever you do, you do it well. Without a RoTB or RoTJ I vote based upon the flow.

Signposting

Signposting is the number one, most important thing for you to do in round. You can be making the best arguments in the world, but if I don't know what they are addressing then I have no way of evaluating them. Make sure to go down the flow in a clear manner. Tell me which arguments you're going to address before you address them.

Ks

I'd like to think I'm pretty well read in K lit, and also I can use and understand big fancy words so that shouldn't be a problem. However, from my perspective the only way you should be able to win using a K is if you actually explain it. Do not rely on my prior knowledge to win you the round, you should understand the literature you're referencing enough to fully regurgitate it and explain it to me inside of your case and in questioning periods.

My main strategy for the LD nuclear war topic, on a very local, very traditional circuit was a Foucault K. I won almost every round using that case because it had both a strong link to the topic and I understood the literature so well that I explained it to the judges like they were five. You should be able to do both of those things with every K that you run, otherwise you shouldn't be running a K.

Speed

Speed is not an issue for me, but if you are going to be doing anything that could be considered spreading (like actually spreading not what that old guy you got stuck with would consider "spreading" just because he doesn't like how fast it makes him have to think) make sure to flash or mail your cases to me ahead of time.

Tech v. Truth

For me, I guess I'd be considered a tech judge, but in my view tech and truth are both equally important and one doesn't necessarily come before the other. Take the following hypothetical. Debater A presents a T definition that goes uncontested by Debater B. From that point forward we're working within an a posteriori reference frame where the definition is considered truth. This would be something a "tech" judge would do. Now let's say that after that Debater B makes a theory or K argument surrounding the nature of the definition and whether it's fair or not. At that point Debater B has made an a priori argument critiquing the reference frame itself. If successful, it would throw away the legitimacy of the definition (and depending on the argument, likely the arguments inside of that reference frame). That would be something more typical of a "truth" judge, where arguments about whether something is true or not should be considered. I say that really I'm more of a tech judge because all of that is fairly technical and requires a distinction I feel like tech judges are only capable of, but again the way I see it both arguments are valid it just depends when they're used and in what order.

This does inevitably have the implication that the highest level of debate escalation becomes Ks, theory, and T, but that's alright in my mind as long as the links are substantive.

Philosophy

I come first and foremost from a local circuit meaning I have a solid grasp of the majority of the non-K philosophies you might potentially want to use in round. Everything from Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Util, Conseq, Maslows, Rule of Law, Governmental Legitimacy, Rawls, Distributive Justice, Retributive Justice, Veil of Ignorance, and more.

Don't you try me with that Categorical Imperative though. Let's just say it speaks volumes when the author of a philosophy disowns his own philosophy and adopts skepticism.

CPs

Counter plans are solid, but make sure you have a solvency advocate for each part of your counter plan, otherwise solvency advocate theory will be really easy to win in front of me.

Topical counter plans I personally believe are abusive, but at the end of the day it's the oppositions job to tell me that and prove that to me.

Condo is also pretty abusive, but once again it's not my job to argue that. Just know that if you run Condo and your opponent runs theory on it, it will be really difficult for you to win.

DAs

DAs are cute and fun. This is like the bread and butter of the debate world so of course I'm down with them. That being said the one place I see debaters consistently lose themselves is in impact calculus. Make sure to do sufficient weighing of impacts. I want to hear Time-frame, Scale, Magnitude, Probability, Reversibility, etc.

NIBs

I pretty much have 0 respect for NIBs, you can run them and win on them, but if your opponent does so much as call out the fact that it's a NIB and it's problematic for debate, I'll throw out the argument and won't look back.

Theory

Let's do it, I think Theory is one of the most underutilized parts of debate and I love to hear actually good theory arguments. Full shell format is not necessary, the amount of times I've heard "A is the interpretation... B is the violation... C is the standards... D is the implication..." is way too many times, and for some theory arguments that strict format makes the argument very repetitive.

Frivolous Theory

Ewww gross let's not. No really though if you're gonna run A-Z spec on your opponent and expect me to care, you're surely mistaken.

Disclosure Theory

Disclosure theory must be presented by the opposition, and I need time stamps of the actual violation. That being said if you run disclosure theory in a round where lack of disclosure did not have a significant impact (your opponent isn't spreading, flashed you their case, and is just running like a DA or something), then I'm not going to vote on it.

Falsification of Evidence

I would think this section doesn't need to exist, but just to be safe, if you falsify evidence, or cut evidence in such a way to be antithetical to what the article as a whole is arguing for, the round ends immediately and the other side gets the win. In some cases, the other side doesn't even need to present it to me because I should have your cases in which case I'm reading along just like everyone else and I will see and have evidence of the falsification.

Brownie Points

You can get extra special brownie points with me if you do any of these things:

1. Use the card Kranak '21 (It's about inter-sectionalism in publishing)

2. Talk about The United States' military dolphins

3. Foucault

4. Deleuze (and Dark Deleuze)

5. Nietzsche

Anti-Brownie Points

If you run these things (or any variations on them) the only way you're winning the round is if your opponent forfeits:

1. A-Z Spec

2. Chewbacca Defense

3. Christian Optimism

4. The Debate K

5. The Dolphin Intelligence K

6. Double Loss

7. Squirrels 1AC

8. Zombies Are Gonna Kill Us!

9. The Brony 1AC

10. *Makes a Sandwich*

11. Timecube

12. Anything to do with Ashtar

13. The Fan Death K

14. "for use at a snowy tournament" (The Snowball Fight Counterplan)

15. Illuminati Lizard People

16. Logical Phallusy

17. The Pokemon K

18. "Ron Paul"

19. The Shrek K

Basically, if I can find it in the meme folder on my computer, I don't want to hear it.

I am a first-year studying Comparative Literature and Molecular Environmental Biology @ UC Berkeley. My pronouns are they/them.

PARADIGM

TL;DR: don’t shake my hand. Would like offtime roadmap. Make sure your [link] story is clear. Weigh.

Grace periods don't exist.

If you are going to talk about East Asia, particularly China or South Korea, you'd better be representing the facts correctly. I have a unique amount of knowledge in that area.

POI:

I’d like it if you take at least one POI if asked, especially if it's framework-related. I'm usually not cognizant of protected time, so make sure you know the tournament rules!

Case & CP:

Have a clear plantext with adequate specification and solvency (I care about this a lot).

Fine with small affs.

If you’re running a CP, explain why it’s competitive. Perms are a test of competition so either explain to me clearly why the CP is competitive or why it isn’t. If the CP isn't competitive then you can make that your advocacy. I don’t mind multiple CP’s but explain to me why you can contradict yourself if you do. I love PIC’s (but it doesn’t mean I won’t vote on PIC bad theory if you run it well). Also, I like advantages to CPs.

Generally, I don't like PICs but I love the theory debate over them.

Make sure to ask CP status, always.

Defaults on Case:

Presumption flows to the side of least change.

Probability > magnitude.

LOR/PMR:

Weigh your impacts because I won’t do it for you. Don't make your weighing "this is better because it has highest magnitude". Give me more than that.

Collapsing is preferred, but not required. Even in a round where you're winning on everything, collapse please (it makes my job much easier). But, if the round gets messy (T, K, case, etc), collapsing is VERY necessary.

The LOR shouldn’t be the MO. I’ll flow only the aspects that make up a voter’s speech.

Tie everything to your weighing criterion.

I default to probability.

POO:

I will be deciding right then and there if it's new or not because it could seriously affect the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with friv--but it has to be explained really well for me to buy it. Make sure I see the actual merit in it. If you run something that could've been answered with a POI (or with online tournaments, flex time), I don't like it and I think you're honestly normalizing abuse in debate.

Thirty speaks is fine but (see below) I give 28-29 anyway.

Please have text ready. In online tournaments, put it in the chat.

Kritik

No K Aff unless the resolution absolutely begs for it.

I'm not amazing with speed so if you're going to run a k, run it "slowly". If your k can't be explained at a normal speaking speed, then you are being non-inclusive to not only me, but likely your opponents as well. Make sure to slow and clear when your opponents tell you to.

Not a fan of bad k's or running k's just to run k's. I can tell the difference and you also have to explain your k very well to me. I have a high threshold. However, I also understand that ks are often necessary as a survival strategy and some topics absolutely need to be critiqued. Unfortunately, I think that most people abuse the existence of the k.

Dislike postmodern ks.

Speaker Points:

I don't care about eye contact or stuttering or anything like that.

Miscellaneous:

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible but if you are blatantly incorrect, that flies out the window (this especially applies for topics I'm very knowledgeable in, e.g. China topics). However, it is impossible to be tabula rasa so perhaps it's more appropriate to say that my aim is to be objective.

Tagteaming is fine. I’ll only flow what you say.

I will vote against you if you have very problematic rhetoric during your speech. Don’t be hostile.

Provide a text if the team calls for it, preferably immediately. (Since we're living in the age of online tournaments, I expect you to be able to provide a text immediately in the chat. Always put your interps in the chat!)

I don’t care whether you stand or sit.

Don’t pay attention to any of my facial expressions. Sometimes I'm about to sneeze.

Don’t pay attention to my flowing. Just focus on your speech.

You can always ask me questions about the debate, your case, etc. after the round.

If you say or do anything problematic during the round, we will have a discussion with all parties present after the round is over.

TL;DR I have some experience and am a progressive judge, so you can do whatever as long as you make sure you explain things and have warrants. The best way to get my ballot is generating lots of offense and doing good weighing / impact comparison. If you're looking at this right before a round trying to decide on your strategy, run whatever you want.

Experience:

-3 years Parli at Ashland HS (Oregon); broke at TOC my senior year

-4 years NFA LD (basically solo policy) at Lewis & Clark; 2022 National Champion

-3 years as head coach at Catlin Gabel HS

-Current law student, if that matters

-Well over 100 rounds judged; 37-5 on the winning side when judging on elim panels.

Main Judging Philosophy:

Progressive/Flow judge. I vote on the flow and will vote for you if you win. Do that however you want; just make sure you sufficiently explain your arguments so they are actual arguments rather than claims with no warrants.

Please collapse in your final speeches! It makes things so much cleaner, and if you give me a clear path to the ballot instead of trying to messily go for everything, it will only help you. Same for weighing: if you weigh your impacts things will be so much cleaner and easier for me to vote for you.

Ks are fine on the aff or neg. Framework is fine. T is fine. Theory is fine. DAs and CPs are fine. Tricks are fine. It's all fine just make the arguments you want to make.

Speed is fine. I'd like to be on the email chain or file sharing if applicable. For Parli, please slow down on tags and important texts (e.g., plan texts, topicality interps, etc.)

Misc:

Disclaimer: if you say anything blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic or generally bigoted I will give you zero speaker points and you will lose. Just be nice please.

Note that I do not always flow author names, so when extending cards, please give me the tagline or reference what the card actually says rather than just saying "extend Smith 21." I don't want to have to look for it in the doc.

Happy to answer detailed questions before the round! Just trying to keep this short.

I'm Sarah, I did CX for 3.5 years in high school, 2 years in college at JMU doing NDT/CEDA, and then just under 2 years of NPDA at Western Washington University ending as a semifinalist with my partner in 2020. I've been coaching middle school and high school parli for the last 4ish years.

Prefs-

Now that we're back to in-person tournaments, please feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round starts if there's anything I can clarify.

this is still a work in progress

On the K-
I'm most familiar with MLM, however I can keep up with and evaluate most everything. I know the framework tricks, if you know how to use them. I have a high threshold for links of omission. I default aff doesn't get to weigh the aff against the K, unless told otherwise. I see role of the ballot arguments as an independent framing claim to frame out offense. I default to perms as tests of competitions, and not as independent advocacies. For K affs-you don't need to have topic harms if your framework has sufficient reasons to reject the res, but from my experience running nontopical affs I find it more strategic if you do have specific justifications to reject the res (I guess that distinction is more relevant for parli).

On theory-
I default to competing interps over reasonability, unless told otherwise. I have kind of a high threshold for reasonability, especially when neg teams have racist/incorrect interpretations of how debate history has occurred in order to justify reactionary positions. If you have me judging parli-I default to drop the debater; and if you have me judging policy/LD-I default to drop the argument. I default to text of the interp. Parli specific: (if no weighing, do I default to LOC or MG theory? I'll come back and answer this). I don't default to fairness and education as voters, if you just read standards, then I don't have a way to externally weigh the work you're doing on that flow. I default theory apriori, but I have a relatively low threshold for arguments to evaluate other layers of the flow first. I default to "we meet" arguments working similarly to link arguments, the negative can still theoretically win risk of a violation, especially under competing interps. For disclosure arguments-I have a very high threshold for voting on this argument in parli, given that it's nearly non-verifiable. For other formats, I think disclosure and the wiki are good norms. In general, admittedly I have a high threshold for voting on t-framework.

General/case stuff-
Case-CPs don't get to kick out of particular planks of their CP in the block, if there are multiple. I default to no judge-kick. Given no work done in the round, uniqueness matters more than impacts. Fiat is durable.

I default to impact weighing in this order if no work is done in the round: probability, magnitude, timeframe.

If I am judging you in an event that you read evidence in the round-if there's card-clipping, it's likely to be an auto-drop. If you misconstrue evidence, I won't intervene but I'll have a low threshold for voting on it if the other team brings it up.

They/them

Quals: Been doing nat circuit coaching and competing since 2019

Theory: I don't feel strongly about things like condo, dispo, or anything as such. Stonger feelings I do have are event specific and listed at the end of the paradigm. I have a list of defaults but I can def be persuaded otherwise.

• Topicality comes before other forms of theory (like spec!)
• 1NC theory comes before 1AR/2AC theory
• Competing interps > reasonability
• Text > Spirit of the interp
• Drop the debater > Drop the argument
• Meeting the interp is terminal defense
• Theory comes before substance
• Fairness and education are voters
• No RVIs

K Debate: Sure! I was mainly a K debater when I competed. I'm pretty tired of hearing post-structuralist nonsense that amounts to inclusive oppression or do nothing. Cap debates are done wrong in many debates for a lot of the same reasons.

• Reject alts are fine but have a pretty low chance of winning my ballot short of conceding alt solvency.
• I think debates can be won on frame outs paired with a risk of solvency.
• Don't care for role of the ballot debates, however, if done right they can still win rounds if you go for it as a question of whether or not the other team textually meets the role of the ballot. Almost like theory!
• I still don't know what no perms in a methods debate means!
• Critical affs dont need links to the topic if theres substantive framing that justifies the aff.
• Links can be disads to the perm but tell me why!

Case:

• Fiat is durable
• Stock issues are not my favorite path to the ballot
• I don't judge kick counter plans unless told to
• kicking planks in a plan or counter plan is cool unless someone wins a theory violation

LD Specific: A couple of quick notes

• You should disclose. I wont auto vote on disclosure but I'll have a high threshold for responses to it
• Either flash analytics or slow down/clear because I'm not going to get the 2 page long overview at 670 WPM
• I evaluate most tricks like theory interps

Parli Specific: I've had these happen enough times back to back that if you do these things its either an auto L and/or 25 speaks

• Reading a K Aff then going for 2AC theory and impact turns to T at the same time when they have the same impact
• Reading a neg perm gets you 25 speaks. Going for it gets you an L.
• Disclosure theory because theres no speech docs or wiki in parli, how do I even verify it!
• Speed bad theory gets you 25 speaks but an auto L if you're an open circuit debater who spreads and read speed bad
• K's bad theory gets you 25 speaks.

MISC: A couple of ground rules!

• Don't read Afropess/social death claims if you're not black
• Not voting on cap good
• Not voting on heg good
• Not voting on racism good
• Terminal defense is hard to win
• Give me pen time

I am a former debater and IEer from 1999 to 2007 and then I coached collegiate speech and debate from 2007 to 2009. I am passionate about this activity and enjoy judging when I can. I have done almost any IE or debate event you can think of. I did 4 years of collegiate Parli debate with an additional 2 years of coaching the activity. In high school I did LD, Congress, and Ted Turner (now Public Forum) debate and a variety of different individual events.

Policy/Debate Paradigm - While I have never done Policy as a competitor, I can flow and follow almost any argument you want to make. I warn you of three things about me:

1) You need to explain the argument you are making or I am willing to ignore the argument. If you explain the argument and provide me with realistic impacts I am happy to vote on pretty much any argument you want to make. If your impacts are poorly developed or are overly dramatic (global destruction, millions dead, etc) I will probably give your position very little weight. I do not know what your cards say so take the time to explain your argument. I will usually make my decision by weighing the quality and likelihood of potential impacts. I was a plan/counter-plan/dis-ad/topicality debater myself, but I have voted plenty of times for well developed critical arguments as well.

2) If you flow me out of the round that is your problem, not mine. I have a lot of flowing experience, but am by no means the fastest. I have from time to time missed arguments because speakers have gone too fast. I will do my best to keep up, but you go too fast at your own risk. I am not saying you need to go slow, just be careful.

3) I really like to see people having fun in this activity. Be creative and be nice to one another. I know it is easy to get wrapped up in argumentation and become passionate about what you are arguing. Always remember that this is a game that is meant to be enjoyed by everyone. If you cross the line between being competitive and being a jerk, you will not find me to be very happy with your performance.

Have fun and good luck!!

Andrew Wilson

---------------Most Recent Update: 3/30/2024 (NPDL TOC) -------------

TOC-Specific

TOC is the biggest opportunity for students to learn about different styles of debate. I expect y'all to try to learn. Refer to Luke DiMartino's section on "Ballot" for what I expect to occur when styles clash. Refer to Sierra Maciorowski's section on "Pedgogy" for my thoughts on technical accessibility. Refer to Sam Timinsky's section on "Lay vs. Flow" for my thoughts on tech v. lay in the debate community as a whole.

This is also the biggest opportunity for you all to connect with one another! For the first time in 5 years TOC will be in person so make friends with your competitors and be kind to each other! Feel free to reach out to me after the round for my thoughts more deeply on issues (or, after the tournament, if you'd like coaching (NYC is expensive :( )). I am a huge debate nerd so I love it when y'all have a good time and enjoy this beautiful activity. Have fun! :D

If you open-source your TOC prep you get automatic 30 speaks. Everyone should do it anyways....

No consistent coaching, but had intermittent mentorship from Trevor Greenan, Cody Peterson, Javin Pombra, Ming Qian, and Sam Timinsky. Philosophically similar to Esha Shah, Sierra Maciorowski, and Riley Shahar. Try not to pref both me and lay judges; splitting ballots at TOC leaves no one happy, and punting one of us will make both of us sad.... :(. I enjoy super techy intricate debates!

My pronouns are on tab now; please use them and your opponents correctly! Will drop speaks for first infraction, will drop teams after that.

Lastly, I've gotten really into Feyerabend. If you are interested in the philosophy of science (especially on topics about science/technocracy/AI/etc.), I highly recommend his work! There's an old Feyerabend K backfile I found that I can send to people who are interested!

Background

I did parliamentary debate for 4 years w/ Cupertino, but I'm pretty familiar with LD and PF. Currently coach parli and PF. Coached extemp for 2 years and policy intermittently. Debated APDA a bit but wasn't my cup of tea. I was a 1N/2A if that gives you any indication of my biases for speeches.

I mostly went for K if I could, but good on T and fast case. For Ks I usually went for Daoism or Asian Conscientization. If anyone wants a rough copy of either of the Ks feel free to message me on FB or email me (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com). Tried to get K-DAs off the ground but didn't debate enough rounds for it to stick :( Also if you're from a small school message me or email me for a copy of my Small Schools K.

TL;DR

- be cool, have fun, dont be a jerk

- weigh lots

- clever arguments make me very happy!

- no friv T, don't like tricks (although this I think has fallen out of favor since I've graduated)

- *not* a K hack despite my background. This is because I love Ks to death. If you are a *K debater* please pref me because I love a good K debate, but don't use a K just because you think you can get a cheap win. If you would like to get better at K debate, please pref me because I love teaching better Ks in parli :D

- seriously pleaaaaaaase be nice each other, it makes me sad when debaters get upset and debate should be fun!

Preferences

These are not hard and fast rules but general guidelines for you to see how much work you'll need to put in to win the argument. I have found that the farther I get from being a competitor in high school debate, the fewer real preferences I have and I could not care less about most issues. In other words, if it's not mentioned by name in the list below, I don't have a default and *will* flip a coin absent argumentation. If it was that important to your case, you should have mentioned it!

My number 1 preference is for you to try new things and have fun. My partner always said that if you're not having fun you're not doing it right, which I have always found to be true. Also don't be a jerk (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc) or you'll drop instantly.

I evaluate the round systematically.

1) Who is winning framework? How should I evaluate arguments at all?

2) Who is winning the layering/sequencing arguments? According to the debaters, what order should I evaluate the arguments? Absent that, I default to my stated defaults.

3) Who is winning offense on each layer? When I hit a layer where there's a clear winner, I vote for that team

In other words, I look at layers from top to bottom (e.g. K > T > Case, Advantage 1 > DA 2 > etc., etc.) and as soon as one layer isn't a tie I will just vote for whoever is winning that.

Some things that always make me happy

• Clever plans/CPs: this usually means very good specificity that lets the Adv/DA debate get very intricate
• Ks with very specific links and interesting solvency arguments! Choosing fun solvency advocates is good for everyone!
• Theory with unique standards and approaches (e.g. going hard for reasonability or the RVI, standards like "creative thinking" or "framers' intent", etc.). I'm probably the most lenient tech judge on the underview issues in theory.
• Consistent sign-posting throughout the round. If the 2N says something like "go to the warrant on the second internal link on the Econ DA" I'm going to be really happy that you kept that up the whole round
• Collapsing to fun stuff (e.g. on weighing: timeframe, sequencing, etc.)

Defaults

- If it's not in the final speeches I'm not voting on it.

- Default to probability > magnitude. Bonus speaker points if you collapse to timeframe

- Unwarranted arguments will have very little weight in my mind; if I don't know why something is true I don't know why I should buy the argument: source w/ warrant > sourceless warrant > warrantless source > sourceless and warrantless (this last one isn't an argument at all).

- Don't care if there's a source citation in parli

- Signpost! If I don't know where you are, I'm probably not gonna be able flow it!

T

- Real-world education impacts are the way to my heart, default to Education over Fairness

- Default to RVIs valid, but you need to read a particular brightline for the RVI to function

- Default to Reasonability (esp. Content Crowdout, though I don't think people run this anymore (if you do bonus speaker points))

- Don't use "small school" arguments unless you're actually from a small school or can justify how your program is disadvantaged. I'll give leniency on this but please don't be disingenuous -- and being on the circuit for so many years I think I've developed a good intuition.

K

- KNOW THE SOURCE MATERIAL WELL AND HOW IT ENGAGES ESPECIALLY W/ FOREIGN POLICY TOPICS: most K's (especially generics) are written with the US in mind and are *not* applicable to other places, be sure that the K functions elsewhere before you run it

- PLEASE PLEASE have good links that actually connect to the specific articulation of the Aff.

- If it's a funky K, go nuts, but please explain stuff (for the sake of me and especially for the sake of your opponents) or I won't know what you're saying

- K Affs are lit, just make sure there's actual ground for both sides (for all the Negs out there, email me if you want a copy of arguments against K Affs)

- If you read a decent K out of the 2AC you'll get a 29.5 at least.

- If you read theory saying NEG Ks are not legitimate, I will drop you

- Familiar with most Ks except for super pomo stuff. I'm not sure what the place for identity Ks are in the debate space and I have not judged them enough or been engaged with the community enough to be educated but please be cool about them if you do want to read it and make sure there's an actual valid opposite side

- From Riley Shahar's paradigm: "I tend to think that debate is not the best space for arguments which are reliant on the identities of competitors. I am certainly willing to listen to these debates, because I know from experience that they can be necessary survival strategies, but making assumptions about other people’s identities is a very dangerous political move which can force outing and be counterproductive to revolutionary action."

Tricks

Go slow and explain them super clearly (probably defeats the point of running them but hey it's your round).

Speaker Points

Do work on 30 speaks theory, don't just throw it out there for the sake of it. Speaks are entirely assigned based on strategic decisions made in-round (i.e. I don't care how you say it as long as you say it). 25 or lower for problematic speech/behavior.

APDA Specific

- default to beat-the-team on tight calls

- don't be purposefully obtuse in POCs or you're getting tanked (and I'll be more lenient on tight calls and case args)

- pragmatic > principle, but easily swayed

- run a K, run theory, run condo, go nuts, just don't call it that if it's against tournament rules

- please POO shadow extensions: if it's not extended in the MG, I consider it new (even if it's in the PMC)

Non-Parli

- I don't flow cross

- Read full cites or I'm not flowing it (in particular this is @ PF)

- Cards with warrant > cards without warrant = warrant without card > claim without warrant

- Bonus speaker points if you disclosed on the wiki

- PF: If it's in FF it needs to be in summary

- Add me to the email chain (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com)

Misc.

- Call "clear" or "slow" if you can't keep up; if you don't slow down enough when the other team calls it several times you're going to get dropped with tanked speaks. I will also call clear/slow as necessary

- If you say something blatantly untrue, I'm giving the other team the argument (the bar for this is very high though so just please don't lie).

- If you tell me to check the argument, I'll do it but I won't treat it as a "lie" unless it's egregious (in which case I can tell either way)

- Go slow on plans/CPs, interps, alts, etc. Have copies prewritten for everyone. For online tournaments, have texts in the chat right after you say them. We're online! It's so much easier to pass texts! (boomer grumblegrumble)

- For Points of Order, tell me explicitly which argument is new and why (if you're calling it) and where it was on the flow in which speech specifically (if you're responding). I will let you know whether or not I think it's new unless it's in outrounds. Trust me when I say that it is too much work (usually) to protect against new arguments.

- Virtual POIs: put them in the chat, please be mindful of the chat if you're the one speaking

- Tag-teaming: go for it, but both speakers must state the argument

no longer active in debate! if you're interested in reading my paradigm for some reason, email me at eugxu@sas.upenn.edu and we can talk.

FOR GGI 2021

I haven't heard or flowed speed in a while, and also haven't been super involved in debate lately, so I will probably have trouble flowing top-speed. Content preferences are generally unchanged, with the exception that I now know even less about both current events and critical literature. My general inclination as a judge is to take whatever is said in-round at face value (e.g. I won't fact check warrants or scrutinize textually flawed interps unless told to do so).

Most of the below paradigm was written when I was still a competitor. Looking back, I've found that the actual process I use when judging rounds is frankly very intuition-based and not always the most technical, especially when it comes to warrants and POIs. At the end of the day, I think debate is just competitive storytelling. And personally, I prefer Ancient Aliens to C-SPAN.

OLD PARADIGM (mostly still applies)

TL;DR: Go nuts (but please don't be rude/horrible to your opponents).

The round is yours. I prefer a well-executed strategy more than anything else. For some background, I competed in NPDA at Berkeley for three years (graduated in 2020). As a competitor, the arguments I most commonly collapsed to were Theory, Buddhism, Anthro, Politics, and Dedev.

Here are some general thoughts/preferences:

Case/Disads: I love to see good case debate. I'm not particularly well versed in what's going on in the world, so if the case debate is getting messy then some top-level overviews and explanation are probably helpful. I don't care if you read generics. I like good politics debates.

Counterplans: I have no preferences on issues like conditionality, PICs, delay, consult, negative fiat, etc.. I'll vote for it if I think you're winning it, and I'll vote for them if I think they're winning a theoretical objection. By default, I assume negative advocacies are conditional.

Kritiks: If you're reading something complicated, overviews/explanation are super appreciated. Words like ontology, epistemology, etc. don't mean that much to me in a vacuum, so it's good to read implications to arguments when extending them. K affs are fine, I don't have much attachment to the topic (although I'm happy to vote on framework-T too if won).

Theory: I think it can be a strategic tool in addition to a check on abuse. I default to competing interpretations and drop the team. Will evaluate an RVI if you read a justification. Proven abuse is unnecessary, but you can make arguments why it should be necessary and I'll listen to them. If reasonability doesn't have a brightline or some explanation of what it means to be reasonable, then I'll just disregard it.

Presumption/tricks: I believe in terminal defense. By default, I think presumption goes neg. In general, I don't mind voting on tricksy arguments as long as they're sufficiently explained when gone for.

Point of orders: Feel free to call them. I'll try and protect, but I think they're still good to call just in case I'm missing something. I will also try to protect from shadow-extensions.

Out-of-round stuff: I'm pretty sympathetic towards arguments calling for content/trigger warnings before the round.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts.

Background: 4 years of HS parli for Campolindo with this one

Theory

- Default to evaluating this layer first, but if there’s a K then it’s up to the debaters to resolve the sequencing question

- Default to competing interps > reasonability, but I’ll buy args otherwise

- Provide a brightline for reasonability

- It's not what you did, it's what you justify (I will vote on potential abuse)

- Default drop the team, but I’ll buy args otherwise

- High threshold for RVIs

- Fine with friv t

Case

- I prefer case debate

- Generic args are fine, but adapt them to be specific to each round/res. Warrant your claims

- Please read uniqueness in the right direction

- Condo is fine, but condo bad is also fine

- Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy

- Terminalize your impacts, otherwise I can’t evaluate them. Also weigh

Kritik

- Unfamiliar with most lit bases tbh, so don’t assume I’ll fill in any blanks for you

- Things I’ve run: cap, biopower, fem

- Please engage with the aff/the resolution

- K affs are fine, but I’ll also vote on framework T

Other

- Given competing claims that run in parallel with no explicit comparison, I will probably end up either intervening or disregarding both claims. Don’t let this happen

- I prefer the offense-defense model of debate because that’s what I’m most familiar with. Not the best at evaluating truth-testing

- Speed is fine, i’ll clear you if you’re too fast

- Will try to protect, but still call the poo. No shadow extensions

- Presumption flows neg unless the neg reads an advocacy, in which case I’ll presume aff; however, I have a high threshold for voting on presumption

- Tag teaming is fine, but I'll only flow what the speaker says

- I don't believe in grace periods. Sit down when your time is up