Hi i’m Sid, currently debating Parli at Nueva

TL;DR

Tech > Truth

U can run essentially anything (aff/neg Ks, friv T, case, etc)

*General Notes*

• Take a reasonable amount of POIs(especially if you’re running a k)

• Don’t spread out opponents/tech out? opponents without experience

• Don’t be rude/sexist/racist/etc

*Case*

Solvency is really important, and should be engaged with on both sides.

Also impact analysis is really necessary, along with explanations of how impacts should be weighed(like magnitude > probability and vice versa).

Collapse as much as possible, and try to go in order of the roadmap/signpost as much as possible.

Termanilize impacts and weigh them against your opponents' as well,

Tech case debate is my favorite form of parli so if you wanna run case please do.

*Tech arguments*

• Ks

Good w Aff and Neg Ks , but I've only ever run setcol/cap/sec so if you have more complicated lit you'll need to explain it clearly. That being said, feel free to run them as long as your opponents have a sufficient level of tech experience(if you're a novice like cmon). Slow/repeat alts/ROBs/important things.

Good alt solvency/historical warranting is necessary; topic-specific links are preferred if you're rejecting the res; you need a solid FW to win a ROB; I think reject alts and thinks like daoism are pretty dumb, but I'll still vote on it.

• Theory

I default to CI > reasonability and education > fairness. I love running friv T and I'll definitely vote on it, but you probably need to do more work to get a ballot on it vs like topicality.

• Tricks/Phil

I don’t think i’ve ever actually heard these args in a round so I probably can’t evaluate them well

*Other things*

Respect slow/clears

try to answer 1-2 POIs/speech, if you're running a complicated K answer more

tech over truth.

If you make any references to the 9ers or warriors I'll give u higher speaks - but like ill start at a 28 anyways

Summary

It’s your debate, I’m down to hear any argument. Comfortable with case/K/T/tricks/phil in roughly that order, but happy to evaluate any argument you make (including rejecting the res). As a debater, I went for a roughly even mix of K/case in tech rounds. Speed is fine if your opponents can handle it. Weighing and warranting win rounds. Be respectful to everyone in the round. Call the POO, articulate the cross-application, make the debate as explicit as possible for me. Email p.descollonges@gmail.com.

Background

I competed in parliamentary debate for six years, mostly at Nueva. I was most successful at tech parli, but also found success at both NorCal and Oregon lay tournaments (see bottom of paradigm for notable results if that matters for your prefs for some reason—it probably shouldn’t). I also debated 4 NPDA tournaments last year. I’m a sophomore at UChicago and coach for Nueva. You can reach me at p.descollonges@gmail.com. To prevent this paradigm from being too unwieldy, I’ve only included actionable preferences (i.e. preferences that have a clear impact on what arguments you should be making). Outside of these explicit preferences, I strive to evaluate all arguments fairly, but if you’re interested in my specific thoughts on an argument, feel free to ask me before/after the round (e.g. whether I personally like condo—I’m more than happy to evaluate it, but I also think condo bad is underused).

NON-PARLI EVENTS (feel free to skip if you are a parli debater!!):

I'm fine with speed up to ~300 wpm. If you're in PF, go as fast as you want. For LD, feel free to spread, I'll slow if needed. For policy, you'll probably need to cut speed, but feel free to ramp and I'll slow when I need to—just give me pen time and a speech doc.

I do not know your event. I do not know your norms. I'm sorry about that! I'll do my best to evaluate your round still. Regardless of event, I will vote on clearly articulated framework/weighing/sequencing claims ALWAYS, especially if I'm not comfortable with your event. In general, I assume defense cannot win rounds. I default to a net benefits/other offense-based framework, I'm willing to evaluate stock issues framing but am probably awful at it and need a justification for it.

My lack of knowledge about norms is not an excuse to be sketchy. I am more than happy to look up the (conviniently nationally codified!) rules for non-Parli events if something feels wrong to me. This doesn't mean I'll drop you for reading a K aff (because hopefully you're reading implicit or explicit args that breaking rules is good if there's a rule against your position); but it does mean that you shouldn't expect to get away with e.g. gross speech time violations. I'll generally defer to anything both teams seem to agree on if both teams seem comfortable and I am unfamiliar with the event, unless you try to convince me to give you a double win or something in that vein.

I am a parli person. This does not mean I don't care about evidence. I have a low threshold for ballot comments about sketchy evidence. I have a much higher, but still comparatively low, threshold for intervening on evidence ethics. I have an extremely low threshold for not voting on evidence your opponents call out as sketchy if it is sketchy. I will read cards necessary to decide my ballot (yes, this includes in PF.) I will not vote against you because e.g. you citing a specific sub-conclusion that helps you from a study that argues generally in the opposite direction unless your opponents point it out, in which case I will read the card. I will affirmatively intervene to disregard or vote down blatantly fabricated, misconstrued, or excessively powertagged evidence in compliance with NSDA evidence rules (7.4.A/B/C). I will also strive to comply with NSDA rules for formal challenges (7.2/3), but am not experienced with this procedure. Please just be ethical with your evidence.

Feel free to read my parli paradigm if you want an idea of more specific preferences! Ask me before the round if you have any questions.

PARLI:

Logistics

I hate protected time, but will grudgingly accept that some tournaments use it. It’s ultimately up to the speaker—I will not intervene if the speaker wants to take a POI during protected time. I will follow tournament rules on grace periods, but grace periods aren’t speech time—please don’t make new arguments. I will disregard them.

Call the POO. I protect in the PMR, but give the benefit of the doubt to the speaker unless a POO is called. Incorrect answers to a POO do not waive this protection. I do not protect in the LOR, because there are situations where the aff would prefer I not protect—call the POO if you want me to drop the arg. In novice/beginner rounds, I reserve the right to protect.

Please don’t shake my hand. I don’t care if you sit, stand, etc.—as long as I can understand you, you’re fine. I don't care what you're wearing.

I’ll give at least one of oral or written feedback depending on the specific circumstances of the round, defaulting to a longer oral RFD with a summary in the ballot. You are welcome to record anything I say after the round and/or request I write it out in the ballot. I will try to get substantive and substantial feedback to you in all circumstances—if the tournament bans disclosure and/or we’re running on a tight double-flighted schedule, expect a longer ballot. My preference is to give both an RFD in which I explain how I analyze the arguments in the round and individual speaker feedback, but in complicated outrounds especially, there’s a chance I won’t get to individual speaker feedback. If you’re specifically curious, always feel free to ask. I’m open to postrounding, but if I’m talking to you, I can’t change my ballot. If you think there was a genuine equity issue in the round and I've already submitted my ballot, the person to talk to is the tournament equity director, not me.

I’ll ask for any information I need for my ballot (e.g. speaker positions). No double-wins, no double-losses except in rounds with equity issues.

Speaker Points

If the tournament seeds based on speaks (speaks, -1HL, or z-score) as the first tiebreaker for teams with the same number of wins, I’ll default to 29s (or as close as possible). I’ll give 30s to anyone who impresses me, particularly with strategic argumentation. I will not hesitate to drop your score as a clear signal that I disapprove of some behavior (see equity section below), but will not go below 29 due to mistakes or perceptions of you as a “weaker” debater.

If the tournament does not seed based on speaks as the first tiebreaker, I’ll give speaks in the ~26.5-29.7 range in most rounds. You’ll get higher speaks for good strategic calls, clean argument execution, and cool extemporaneous warranting. Arguments I like that I haven’t heard before are 30s. I won’t go below 26.5 except as a statement of active disapproval (i.e. if you get a 26.5 or below, your debating was not bad/sloppy/inexperienced, it was problematic).

Equity

Please strive to be a good person in round and out of round. Be respectful to your opponents. I will stop the round if necessary to protect any participant in it. If you are uncomfortable, I’d appreciate it if you communicated that to me (or the tournament staff!) in some way.

Misgendering your opponents will result in lost speaker points at minimum and a round loss if egregious and/or intentional. This is also true for gendered/racialized/etc. negative comments or behavior. As a white man, I don’t have a great way to evaluate the exact harms of specific behaviors, so I’ll generally defer to preferences expressed by affected individuals in dicey situations and/or go to the tournament.

Regardless of current literature on the net effect of content warnings, in the context of the debate rounds, content warnings seem clearly net-good in terms of their risk-reward tradeoff. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round better for you!

Case

I love case debate. I wish more people did case debate. Good case debate will make me very happy as a judge. That means clear arguments with clear impacts, good interaction with your opponents arguments, and a clear (and preferably explicit) articulation of what offense will win you the round. Warranting is also key. Arguments with well-explicated warrants backing them up will almost always beat arguments without warrants.

The best way to win a close case debate is weighing. The best way to win a close weighing debate is to do metaweighing. Please tell me whether I should prefer e.g. evidence or logic. Please explain to me how that applies to your arguments specifically. If you do this, you will win 90% of the case debates I have seen.

I’d love to see more link turns. I’d love to see more uniqueness leveraged after the PMC/LOC. I’d love to see more warrants on internal links.

CPs

Down for anything. Win the theory debate. I’ll evaluate all CP theory I can think of. I’ll also evaluate all CPs I can think of, but please have good reasons to prefer, especially if you’re reading delay, etc. Condo is fine by default. Dispo means you can kick it if there’s no offense by default. PICs are fine by default.

Advantages to non-mutually-exclusive CPs are not offense (or defense). Advantages to mutually-exclusive CPs are black swans, but I’m open to hearing why they’re offensive. Perm debates are good, but please don’t say anyone is “stealing” anyone’s advantages.

Evidence

Please do not fabricate evidence. Please do not plagiarize unless the tournament requires you to do so (please reference evidence you use rather than presenting it as original analysis). If the tournament empowers me to do so, I will check your evidence after submitting my ballot, and go to tab/equity if I discover something that seems like an intentional fabrication. Obviously, you have limited prep—mistakes are human, and I won’t hold them against you.

If you give me author’s name/date/source for a claim, you’ll likely win contests over whether that literal claim is true or not. This does not modify the strategic position of the claim in the round. If you do not give me a citation for evidence, I will treat your claim as a claim. Given that I try to be tabula rasa, this is normally fine (i.e. in most debates, it won’t matter if you cite a source for the US unemployment rate).

Ks

I like hearing good K debate! I really like hearing new shells, well-thought-out strategies, good historically-backed warranting, and solid links. I really dislike hearing canned shells from backfiles you don’t understand.

I like KvK debate. I am open to rejecting the res, I’m also open to framework. I have a high threshold on Ks bad theory from the aff, but would consider voting for it.

I’m most familiar with Marx, modern Marxists, and queer/disability theory, but I’m open to hearing anything—just explain it well.

Please have specific links that are not links of omission. Please give me a role of the ballot.

I’m not convinced the aff gets a perm in a KvK debate, but I’ll default to allowing it.

T/Theory

I’m happy to listen to literally anything. I generally prefer fairness on T and education on theory, but please don’t feel bound by that. Jurisdiction is absolute BS but I’ll vote for it.

I default to competing interps over reasonability, potential over proven abuse, and drop the argument when it makes sense. I do not default to theory being a priori, make the argument (especially if your opponents could plausibly uplayer theory). I do not understand why an OCI is not a separate shell, but I’ll listen to them. I’ll reluctantly vote on RVIs, the more specific the better. I view RVIs as making local offense on the theory sheet a global voting issue by default, but will appreciate and evaluate specific texts as well.

If an argument boils down to "did the team say the magic words," I'll default to the team that spent the most time on it in absence of argumentation on either side (e.g. what counts as an RVI). If that doesn't make sense to you, ignore it, and rely on good argumentation rather than linguistic technicalities.

Results

College: Second seed at NPDA nats '23;Mile High Swing 1 Finalist

Champion/Co-Champion: Evergreen ‘21, ‘22; Campo ‘21; TFT ‘17; Lewis and Clark ‘22; UoP ‘20; NorCal Champs ‘21, ‘22

Finalist: TOC ‘22

Semifinalist: NPDI ‘19, ‘20, ‘21

hi i’m abi (she/he)! i’m a freshman at berkeley and debated parli at nueva for 4 years.

tldr: i really like tech case debate! i can evaluate k debate (familiar w cap/mlm/whatnot, matfem was my jam!). theory is fine, but friv is not my cup of tea. provide cw’s as appropriate. ask for prefs b4 round/any questions are fine! 15sec of grace, i will be timing on my end :p

debate is an educational activity first and foremost. this means that exclusionary vibes and discrimination have no place here. let’s be accessible, kind, and in community! i will intervene against violence.

this means that if you’re a k team hitting a non-k-experienced team, take a min off time to explain your strat/litbase basics and don’t spread your opponents out of the round. kudos + speaks if you try to take clarification questions from the other team. conversely, if you are a non-k-experienced team hitting a k team, you can run t-usfg or whatever, but i would love to see you engage with your opponent’s k and actual arguments in good faith. there’s a lot to be learned from ks and it breaks my heart to see the influx of anti-k sentiments flooding the circuit.

kritical education is how we break cycles of oppression; to push k’s out of parli means embracing the white, cis-heteronormative, patriarchial practice of debate.

——— details below!!

case! i love case debate! i think it’s fun, especially when both sides have a bunch of well-leveraged warrants and are willing to clash. links and impacts are key! tell me what the plan does and why it’s important. weigh your impacts with either probability/magnitude/timeframe frameworks or based on your collapse-strat and the argument you want me to vote on. remember to signpost and organize and balance offensive arguments with defensive ones! PERMS ARE A TEST OF COMPETITION. please please please read a perm-text. i do protect sorta-kinda-vibes. pmr grandstanding is a time-honored tradition, but if it’s egregious i won’t buy it. please POO!

theory~ please try to run theory on proven abuse, an avalanche of shells can be pretty uninteresting, especially if not run well, and makes for a slightly less fun round. impact your theory out! i default competing interps over reasonability and education over fairness, but explain to me what i should be voting on. if you’re kicking the shell, be clear about layering and EXTEND DEFENSE.

kritiks: spicy! delicious! i am most familiar with cap, nihilsm, and matfem but will gladly listen to cool arguments. i want to hear a well-written monism shell sometime; if you run one well, i’ll give you 30 speaks. please signpost and write REAL links :)) your alt should have solvency pretty please! (reject alts are kinda boring tbh) please don’t read identity ks for an aspect of identity you don’t embody. k affs are a vibe, if you reject the res, tell me why you’re doing so. please be clear about layering here too! if you have any k questions, ask me for my contact info in-round :))

misc... ✨texts are binding✨ please respect slow/clears (from either me or your opponents!) please try to answer 1-2 POIs/speech. tech over truth. i think speaker points are bad so if u quote lyrics from my chemical romance or tell me a cool star wars related fact then i’ll give you a 30. if you're being a dick, i'll bomb your points or drop u lol. i default to 29 speaks.

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.

both sides need to eat more fruit they look malnourished

paradigm lol https://docs.google.com/document/d/13yNM4bIspRBuLD2AH2PAhv5JZzOYJIPEd2rTdz59TwM/edit?usp=sharing

✨✨✨✨

tf why does only the sparkle emoji work