I'm a relatively new parent judge.

DO NOT SPREAD. If you talk too quickly, I'm not going to understand you and I'm going to stop listening. Note that this does not mean you can't talk at a reasonably quick pace. However, if you're speaking so fast that it's incomprehensible, the win will go to your opponent.

I'm not open to progressive arguments. Don't run theory shells, Ks, etc. Debate is a communicative event. If you are running insane complicated arguments, not only will I not understand you, but your opponent will likely not either, and I believe that a debate without mutual understanding is not a debate.

I largely prefer traditional argumentation but if you are running borderline arguments like plans and counterplans, make sure that you very clearly explain them.

Avoid the acronyms! If you're running a counterplan, say you're running a counterplan. Don't just say CP. It's just one extra syllable and it makes a large difference in both my understanding and your opponent's.

Truth > Tech. I don't care if your opponent didn't address your argument that the earth is flat or any ludicrous falsehood. If it's very obviously not true, I don't care about the technicalities.

Be respectful. Don't insult the other person. Just focus on attacking their arguments.

Speak clearly! If you're mumbling or you're lagging out, I'll let you know.

Be courteous. Modulate your volume.

I am a parent judge. I have debated in LD when I was in High School over 25 years ago. 2 years ago I have reacquainted myself with debate when my son started competing. So with this being said, I am comfortable with all types of debate however I am not super familiar with all the arguments that currently popular. Assume my understanding at your own risk. What you will get from me is an independent judge that is flow-based. I will base my decision on how articulate your arguments are and if you adequately addressed your opponents key arguments.

I can handle moderate spread, but NOT if you're incomprehensible...and most of you are NOT understandable.

In terms of decisions, I try to make my decisions based on the flow, but will reward debaters for being smart and articulate. Additionally, although I will base my decision on the flow of arguments, I do NOT appreciate any show of disrespect to other competitors, spectators, and judges. I cannot guarantee that it doesn't affect my decision or assignment of speaker points.

School affiliations: Redlands High School,Los Gatos High School, Leigh High School

A good debate means both sides have strong, well researched cases with points that are supported with evidence and easy to follow. Debaters are respectful of each other and the spirit of the event.

I judge on framework and flow. The debater that wins will be the one who best defends their case with supported rebuttals and upholds their value through the end of the debate.

ALL DEBATERS:

▪ Lay judge, usually no flow

▪ Please signpost your arguments

▪ Please speak slowly and clearly

▪ Make your arguments easy to understand

▪ Link your arguments to your impacts

▪ In the final speech, make it very clear why you win (signpost!)

Avery Ursini-Rodriguez

Former Varsity Policy Debate Competitor

Debated at Valley International Preparatory High School

Updated 11/20/21

Please include me on the email chain: averyursinirodriguez@gmail.com

First things first, feel free to ask me about anything on the paradigm if it is unclear before the round. Also, the paradigm is extremely subject to change.

TL;DR - This paradigm will be a conglomeration of known biases of mine, and arguments I generally believe/don't believe. Don't let any of these discourage you from making the arguments you want to; you can win anything as true if you do so in-round. I won't pretend to be completely tabula rasa, but I'll do everything in my power (including making this paradigm) to inform you of potential biases. Make the arguments you're good at and this paradigm might change if you convince me of the power of a particular argument. I am very unfamiliar with everything including the current Policy Topic, so explain arguments/acronyms that might be unfamiliar to me. Also, if you're novice, don't worry about almost all of this, just read whatever you want and be confident, and learn from your experiences! You can read it if you like, but feel no rush to do so. As a note, please don't spread through analytics that aren't in a doc; I will not process or even hear half of the arguments.

General: Tech > Truth. Every argument must have a claim, warrant, and impact. I will be assigning speaker points based on the invisible morality of things in the round (ex: correctly identifying a dropped argument is good, incorrectly claiming a dropped arg is bad) Absent in-round violence (racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, misgendering people, etc.) your speaks should not drop lower than 27.5. I rarely award 29.3-29.7 unless I am blown away by your speaking. I am totally fine with spreading, but I can only type so fast. If you have a document for me to read along on word-for-word (such as the 1AC) then go as fast as you want. If not, please slow down on the parts you want me to flow. Also, rudeness is an immediate deduction from speaks. This includes making noise/being distracting during speeches, excessively cutting off during CX, and snarky comments/insults that target debaters, not their arguments.

K: I won't lie by saying I'm particular to the K. I won't scratch it off the flow, but know it might be more difficult to convince me the K's claim is true, and you'll need to do some more work to show how it links to your opponents. However, I do have a basic understanding of most K's, though treat me as if I'm a fledgling debater who's never even heard of the Cap K. Explain the claims in-round clearly, and show why the opposing side links to your Kritik.

Topicality: I think T is a powerful tool for the neg, whether or not the Aff is genuinely in violation or topical. I can be convinced of nearly anything in-round on T. Provide and compare models of debate under different interpretations, and explain why your model has tangible impacts. I think fairness is probably its own impact, but it certainly can be an internal link to other impacts. Overall, I love T debates.

Policy: I love policy. If you're going to read a disad, explain clearly how the DA links to the aff, and the rebuttals should provide a clear story and link chain that triggers the impacts. I can be convinced a DA has a 0% chance of occurring. I don't favor Process/Consult CPs, but I will evaluate them normally in-round. Condo is probably a reason to reject the team. If you're going to read 10 off, make sure to slow down on taglines and blocks if they aren't sent out in a doc. FIAT isn't fake, but it's not omnipotent. Assume the plan is executed as per the plan text if it could reasonably do so in reality. (ex. I likely won't evaluate a delay DA because of floor clog, but I will evaluate args against a utopian plan text.)

The Value Debate (for LD): If neither competitor makes an argument on value, I default to Utilitarianism: the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Winning the value debate does not win you the round. You win the lens through which I view the round, but your opponent can still win under your interp. Do not blow up on the value debate unless you also plan to argue you win under your interpretation. Cases that win under both interpretations make me happy, but please explain how you do so. I honestly loved my time in LD for the value debate, so I will reward clash on the value and criterion with extra speaks!

Things I Like: Final speeches that give a clear picture of what a ballot for either side means. Substantive clash. Analytics about round-specific arguments. Speaking clearly. Quick puns. Clever strategies. Light-hearted debates.

Things I Dislike: Final speeches that rehash old arguments without responding to new ones. Reading blocks from a document the whole round. Analytics I can't hear. Slurring words without a doc for me to read along on. Jokes in bad taste. Sneaky/Abusive strategies. (you can call these out in-round and if you have sufficient offense I may end up voting on it, use your head about it) Dehumanizing, cutthroat debates.

If you have any questions, be sure to email me before the round or ask me just before we start!