Last updated 2/12/24

As a judge, I view competitive academic debate as an educational rhetoric game. I want you to have the debate you want to have; I try not to intervene if your debate meets two *principles:

1. By default, I will do my best to enforce the published rules of any event I’m judging - based on my personal interpretation/understanding of them. I’m open to reconciling interpretations, but I'd rather do it prior to the first speech. I am less open to arguments that “rules are bad.” I believe maintaining stable competitive parameters is necessary to maintain fairness.

2. I deeply value access to speech and debate. By default, I will do my best to perpetuate a culture of inclusivity.

If you’re unclear on these points, please ask. I'm happy to chat about it.

* While these personal value principles are strongly-held, unless a "violation" seems especially egregious - and in the absence of in-round articulation - I'll be reluctant to intervene. Again, I want you to have the debate you want to have.

My preferences:

I like strong logic. I like it when debaters are considerate of one another and bring good will. I love good humor. I love creative, nuanced, and uncommon arguments.

Ultimately, I’m down for whatever you want to do. If you have specific theory questions, ask me before the round.

Speaker points:
I see speaker points as an opportunity to reward individual oration. Things I value: strong verbal and nonverbal performance, audience/judge adaptation, round vision, and clarity & consistency of structure, content, and presentation.

My limitations:
I believe I’m familiar with most of the norms of middle school, high school, and college-level debate, but I have some weaknesses: I have some difficulty flowing and comprehending top-speed arguments. If you're unsure what my threshold is, look for visual cues or simply ask. Spread at your own risk. If you’ve been doing Policy debate since fifth grade you probably know some jargon and theory that I don’t. I’m more fluent in English than I am in Debate. Run what you want, but bring me with you. Don't assume I'm deep in the lit.

Rebuttals:
I will protect against new arguments in rebuttals in scale with my level of certainty that they're new; If an argument is brand new and the opponent doesn't have a chance to respond to the argument, I will not consider the argument in my decision. If it's Parli, call the point of order.

Speech-y Debate Events (ie SPAR and IPDA):
While the guidelines above apply to my approach to SPAR and IPDA, I will not be strictly a "flow judge." I'll take a more holistic approach in my evaluation. This is a public speaking event, so I'll take the role of more of a lay audience member and less of a panopticon than in other forms of debate. I will still flow the debate.

Discretionary information about me:I'm a night owl. I love vintage motorcycles and guitar amps, karaoke, Mario Kart 64, waterfalls, and podcasts. I've been sorted into House Slytherin.

I am a parent judge, not experienced in speech and debate. Please speak slowly and clearly. If I can’t understand you, it doesn’t count. I may ask clarification questions before the round and during the round as need be.

Hello,

My name is Hnin. As a first-time judge, I experience a blend of excitement and a hint of nervousness. I am committed to approaching my role with humility and fairness.

March 2024 is my first tournament that I will be judging. I look forward to helping the children through their efforts in debate.

I am a parent judge not experienced in debate. Please speak slowly and clearly. If I can't hear you, it doesn't count. Please ask questions for clarification pre-round and during the round as needed.

I'm anti plagiarism- so it feels ethically wrong to do so without asking- but if I could copy Mike Bietz's paradigm word for word, I would (can be seen here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=4969) except I'm ok with flex prep. In addition to everything in here I have a few additional pieces of information.

Note: If you have any questions about how to interpret my paradigm, ask me pre-round. If any of the terminology is something you're unaware of or curious about, feel free to ask me either before or after the round. If you want to look anything up, wikipedia has surprisingly thorough indexes of debate terminology (especially when you're starting out!)

For all Debate:

• Disclosure is good and should be done. Sharing cases is good for fairness in debate. As someone who was in a small program during my high school debate career, the sense that the round was unwinnable because the opponent had 8 coaches giving them prep and resources to my none was incredibly frustrating, and while disclosure doesn't fully solve that, giving people from smaller programs access to evidence, cases and formats from bigger programs helps the health of the debate scene.
• General disclosure rules: Share case right before the speech (aff shares case before their first speech, neg shares case after the aff finishes speech)
• I flow the rounds, and catch what I can. If I don't catch it, it doesn't show up on my flow. Speaking quickly (and even spreading on a circut level) is fine, but you have to recognize your personal limits as a speaker when you do so. Intonation enables the spread, so training yourself as a speaker to be intelligible while spreading is on you.
• When sharing cards, please do so equitably and fairly. Ideally, include myself (and the other judges) on the document sharing doc to ensure that we know the documents are shared fairly, and to prevent frivolous fairness theory being read in the round.
• Debate is, in general, a format for education first and foremost. Fostering an environment that promotes education means that you must enter a round with empathy for your judge, opponent and audience. If a person is confused in a debate round, spend a moment to explain what you mean to them. Creating a debate environment that is inclusive and mindful of diversity gives people an opportunity to meet, learn from and grow with a diverse group of people.
• Related to this, people who push a "old boys club" mentality within debate round, who seek to bully out wins on newer debaters by reading fringe argumentation, or are excessively combative to people who are clearly not comfortable in it don't have a place in debate in my opinion. Remember, although competitive this should be an environment that values being collaborative as well. Debate isn't an environment to get your rocks off and feed your ego by bullying the less experienced, and people who treat it as such will get negative outcomes on ballots from me.
• Above all, remember that debate is an activity that is for fun more than it is anything else. That fun is not just your own; the priority to make everyone enjoy the experience to the best degree you can is important.

For Public Forum:

• PF is not meant to be theory heavy. Philosophy has a useful basis in backing an argument, but being topic-centric is the essence of the debate format.
• Exception: Any independent voters (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.) will be weighed heavily, and if any happen, it will result in an automatic loss.
• On Cross: Being aggressive is good (and encouraged), but you need to give your opponent space to speak. Cutting them off occasionally is reasonable to guide the conversation, but if you ask a question and don't give the opponent space to answer or attempt to railroad a CX by turning it into a soliloquy that will be noted for speaks.
• Impact calculus outweighs argument volume down the flow. If you seek to win on a line by line on argument volume, your opponent will win the debate (if you prove 9 different people will die in 9 arguments, you will lose to the person who proves 90000000 will die in one argument).
• I do flow Crossfire and weigh it as a speech, so cross matters to me as a judge. Don't assume a vote that will be cross-exclusionary. Someone can win in spite of a bad cross, but cross will be weighed in how the outcome is perceived.
• Dedicate summary to expressing Voting Issues and dropped arguments. Extend to why you are winning currently on the flow.
• Dedicate FF to weighing mechanisms and impact calculus.

For LD:

• On Theory: Theory is fine to read, and often makes debate better. One important thing about theory is that I view it as a "pact" that both debaters have to agree on.
• On RVIs: I believe in RVIs as a way to counteract frivolous theory. In general, especially on a circut level, I believe the anti-RVI stances a lot of judges hold on is a portion of what creates the neg skew on the circut. Beyond "fairness" I think that, conceptually, theory takes time and mandates a response and having theory's worst case be net neutral for the team that reads it lacks fairness.
• On Ks: Kritiks are good for debate, but I have a clear line in the sand:
• Topical Ks: Good, make debate better, force flexibility in thought and challenge our implicit biases. Topical Ks further education in round and create a space where we challenge our baseline assumptions in a way that challenges the way we look at the world.
• Non-topical Ks: The only context where I view non-topical Ks as a voter is if an independent voter manifests. Reading "debate is a male-skewed environment and societal burdens placed on women creates inherent unfairness in the debate environment" may be true, something I agree with, and something I prioritize in how I judge, but is not something that I will vote on unless the opponent is engaging in behavior that is exclusionary to that group. And as the debater, you must highlight the infringement.
• On Perms: Perming is good and should be done often. In order to successfully perm in round, you must demonstrate the lack of conflict between the counterplan and the aff.
• Advantages/Disadvantages: All disads and advantages need every plank in order to be considered (uniqueness, link and impact).
• NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE 2AR
• Tricks should be called out as tricks if ran against you. If a trick is identified and demonstrated to be a trick successfully, it will be treated as a voter.