Nueva Parli Invitational

2019 — San Mateo, CA/US

Basil Abushama Paradigm

Background & Experience: 

4 years of hs parli (circuit and lay, 2x toc champ), some HS policy (circuit), some college NPDA 


General Philosophy:

I am okay with listening to any argument any you should choose to run, provided that you lay out the argument clearly and tells me why it wins you the ballot.

I view high school debate as both a competitive activity for the sake of competition and an arena for students to enrich their education by becoming better thinkers and learning more about the world. As such, I will remove myself from the round as much as humanly possible, and base my decision on my best objective evaluation of the arguments made. I flow very carefully. I will not get in your way, so do what you want argumentatively and you can expect me to evaluate it. 

My debate style is pretty diverse — I have a good footing in running and hitting normative topical positions, kritiks, theory, and anything in between. My default layering of the round is that theory comes before the kritik and the kritik comes before case, but, in round, tell me what arguments you want to come first (regardless of if it is the same as my default) as I will not do that work for you. 

Weighing is very important to me, so do a good amount of work analyzing the impacts throughout the round, and especially at the end, in the rebuttals. Tell me what impacts matter the most, why they matter the most, and why they win you the round, regardless of the position you’re banking your strategy on.  



I'm chill with spreading. I will get down your arguments on my flow and will reward higher speaker points to spreading that is exceptionally clear, easy to follow, and/or engaging to listen to. Pointers: 

(1) Slow down for taglines, texts, when you switch to a different sheet of paper or argument, and other important parts of your position as you deem fit. 

(2) Try not to slur or be repetitive. Spreading is only strategic if you can do it efficiently and clearly.

(3) Be considerate to your opponents. If they are not familiar with spreading, then try to be inclusive of them. Give them texts, answer their POIs, and try to be accommodating of their requests if they have any. It really sucks to get spread out of a round -- doesn't mean you should not spread, just means you should try to be a good sport about it. 



Go for it. I dig it. I ran kritiks quite a bit, and enjoy watching a good kritikal round. I am familiar with most of the authors that debaters commonly cite, like Marx, Nietzsche, Agamben, Foucault, Baudrillard, Wilderson, and the rest of the gang. I’m also chill with performances. If you can surprise me with a kritik that isn’t so common, I’ll be happy and give you props, but explain it well. Regardless of whether or not I know the literature, I will not do work for you filling in arguments, explanations or warrants. Pointers: 

(1) Links. Please, run links that interact very specifically with the affirmative position. A few safe generic links are okay, but don’t bank entirely on them. If you can’t come up with any specific links, that means one of two things: one, you aren’t familiar enough with your kritik, or, two, the kritik doesn’t apply well. Both are not good positions to be in. 

(2) Alt & Alt-Solvency. Explain what your alternative does and how it solves for the impacts you outlined in the rest of your K. 

(3) I think framing on the K is pretty important, so don’t skate over that part and assume I’ll just give you reasons why the K comes first. Tell me through what lens I should evaluate the round and why. Again, I will not do work for you on the K. 



I ran K-Affs a few times and have hit them plenty of times. I’m okay with them. Just make sure justify them well, as you should with any kritikal position. 



I also dig theory. I ran theory quite a bit, from your standard shells to some more out-there shells. Although I view theory as a way to check against real abuse, I’ll listen to and vote for any shell if you win the flow. Pointers: 

(1) I default to competing interpretations. 

(2) Be very clear and specific with your interpretations. I will take interpretations literally, meaning, if the other team manages to find a lawyer-esque way to meet your interpretation and its logically valid, I will not give much credence to a backtrack along the lines of “well, you know what we meant.” 

(3) Ground is the most important standard to me, as it is kind of an umbrella for all fairness-related standards. However, you should still weigh your standards if you want to win the theory debate. 

(4) I will not do work for you on the evaluation of the theory. If you want theory to come first, tell me that and tell me why. 

(5) I have a lower threshold to voting on RVI's than most judges, but still have a pretty high threshold. You'd have to do a lot of pretty compelling work on the RVI to use it to get the ballot.


Straight Up Case Debate:

I very much enjoy a well-informed and thought out, normative, topical debate. Well constructed, intrinsic advantages and disadvantages, impact framing from the get-go, and smart strategies increase your chances of getting my ballot. Brink scenarios are almost always more compelling than linear advantages/disadvantages, and try to get your arguments to go in the right direction from uniqueness to links to impacts. 

I’m okay with CPs that change implementation methods, conditionality, dispositionality, and PICs. 



Even flow debate, at its core, is a persuasive activity. Treat it as such. Don’t completely brush off presentation — a confident portrayal of an argument makes it much more appealing to a judge.  

I am okay with tag-teaming, just don’t go overboard about it. 


Other Key Points: 

(1) I like gutsy strategic moves. However, don’t just make a gutsy move for the sake of making a gutsy move, because while I will be amused and pleased, I will not vote for you if it doesn’t win you the round. 

(2) Add some personality, and be yourself. You’re real people speaking to real people — rounds that feel like that are more engaging to watch and partake in, in my opinion.

(3) If you kick something, kick it properly by extending defense. I won’t shadow kick for you if the other team calls you out on the shadow kick.

(4) Be good people. It'd be nice to see the debate community try to spread some love. 

Parul Agarwal Paradigm

Not Submitted

Katie Apsens Paradigm

5 rounds

I briefly competed in NPDA at the University of Washington several years ago. That means that I understand what’s going on in the debate so you don’t need to treat me like a lay judge. That being said, I have been out of debate for a while so going full spreading speed is ill-advised. I am married to the head coach of Nueva so I am improving all the time and working back toward being a proper tech judge.

Tech over truth, sorry Parliamentary Debate doesn’t give me a mechanism for resolving these issues. I won’t intervene. I am happy to judge debaters more interested in rhetoric than technical debate. But, if you don’t tell me some alternative way to evaluate the debate, I will default to tech and most importantly impacts. I flow POI answers.

On how I evaluate speaking: Borrowed from my husband’s paradigm: BE NICE AND PROFESSIONAL. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters WILL be punished on speaker points for being rude (beyond the normal flare of intense speeches) or abusive. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.

Some specifics on how I evaluate specific categories of arguments:

Ks: I have very little experience with Ks. I wouldn’t suggest running them unless you are going to slow down and really explain them to me.

DAs: They should have links, impacts and a clear internal link story. Terminalized impacts will win more often than not. Your midterms uniqueness better be very up to date and specific.

CPs: Needs to actually compete. I don’t like delay CPs.

Theory: I have little experience here but I do understand what’s going on. I prefer education arguments to fairness arguments. Impacts need to be specific to the round. That is, I prefer when actual abuse has occurred. You don’t have a right to your politics DA.

Case: I love good case debate. I would frankly prefer all case given the choice.

Eric Ball Paradigm

I was once a policy debater so there is a reasonable chance that I will keep up on my flow. If I don't, that means there is a good chance you are talking like a policy debater yourself (or like an auctioneer, and I won't feel so bad if I miss something).

I will go where you take me. I will rely on your arguments rather than my own domain knowledge.

I do appreciate when debaters spell it out for me, not just why you should win the argument but how that argument should contribute to the decision. I look for clear links and impacts for the pivotal arguments. I understand that jargon is useful shorthand, but I will understand you better if the jargon does not become excessive.

I will tolerate kritiks but set a high bar for arguments that do not attempt to relate to the resolution, or that could be used regardless of the topic at hand (i.e. meta-arguments like that debate is pointless because we live in a flawed society). I appreciate clash delivered with a level of sportsmanship and manners.

Travis Bond Paradigm

Not Submitted

Gwen Byard Paradigm

Not Submitted

Thomas Li Paradigm

I'm Thomas, a high school debater who has debated for the past two years. My general preferences are as follows:

Speed - I prefer a medium talking speed. Be considerate of your opponents as well. Spreading does not impress me, nor will it improve your speaks. If I can't keep up, that only hurts my evaluation of your performance (and by extension, the ballot and speaks).

Argumentation - Quality over quantity. Having fewer, substantive arguments is far more useful than a flurry of shallow arguments. Presenting them cleanly in an organized fashion is just as important, preferably through a Uniqueness-Link-Internal Link-Impact structure. Somewhat relevant: don't go overboard on P.O.I's or P.O.O's unless they are absolutely necessary to maintaining your ground or the overall fairness of the debate. I do appreciate strong P.O.I's which throw off opponents = higher speaks on your behalf.

Theory - I prefer case debate over theory such as topicality, and ideally the ballot does not boil down to myself deciding on theory. I realize that topicality does come up in debate, but that should not warrant teams to be abusive and their opponents having to rely on A-priori arguments to settle a round. After all, those twenty minutes of prep for a relevant debate topic and potential for learning more about it seem lost through not being able to fairly debate. Other theory like PICs, perms, etc. I'll entertain but cannot guarantee that I'll give substantial feedback for.

Speaks - I will consider both the quality of your arguments and your speaking into your scores. I would usually assign 27 as an average score. Things like signposting and weighing are especially important and will improve your score. Preferably no tag teaming. I'll entertain it if you do, but it may affect your overall speaks.

Disclosing Ballot - I will provide a short RFD in round to talk more specifically about the arguments within the round, and will give more general improvements for speaking and such in the written RFD. When deciding the ballot, I am tabula rasa and will not intervene/connect the dots on behalf of either team. Because I am tabula rasa, it's your job as debaters to explicitly make your case as to why I should vote on your behalf.

Respect - Debate should be a fun experience for people to enhance their speaking skills and general knowledge. At the minimum, opponents should show respect and not intentionally offend others. If you are extremely disrespectful within or beyond the context of the debate, I will give an initial warning and then stop the round if you continue to act disrespectfully. I will factor any behavioral disputes into the ballot and speaks of the round. Other than that, I hope that the debate will minimally involve myself intervening with exception to the RFD, and that it will be a meaningful and enjoyable experience for everyone.

Carolyn Luedtke Paradigm

3 rounds

I did Lincoln Douglas debate in high school for three years (a long time ago!) and parliamentary debate in college at Princeton. Debate was an amazing activity that I loved doing. It trained me very well to be a lawyer -- I am now a litigator and I debate with my adversaries in court instead of high school classrooms. I started judging high school parliamentary debate in the Fall of 2018. High school parli is different from college parliamentary debate and very different from Lincoln Douglas so be aware that I am very familiar with debate, but I am not as familiar with all high school parliamentary lingo.

Things I like:

-- clash (I promise I won't hold it against you if you take a position that I don't agree with, but I really enjoy judging debates where the two sides create a lot of clash and disagreement on the resolution)

-- when you hit all their points. don't drop arguments.

-- organization (please sign post, help me flow)

-- really good quality public speaking (you can talk as fast as you want as long as I can understand you; I think debate should be both persuasive and strategic -- this means I will evaluate both what you say and how well you say it)

Things I do not like:

-- theory

-- running a "K"

-- jargon and acronyms that I don't understand (if you use jargons and acronyms, please just explain them to me)

-- being disrespectful of your opponents (you can crush them, but please do it respectfully)

Ruby Masih Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stephen Moff Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ben Shahar Paradigm

5 rounds

There's a PF specific section at the bottom, but some of the other stuff is relevant to y'all as well.


My pronouns are they/them.

The most important thing is to debate how you want to debate, have fun, and hopefully learn. This paradigm represents my preferences about debate; except when I explicitly say, I will do my best to adapt to the specific round in question.

If you have any questions before the round, email me at or find me on facebook. 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.

Debate is a game structured by wins and losses, but it’s an educational game with important implications on the subject formation of participants. In that vein, I highly recommend this article when you get time.

To win my ballot: do good weighing, signpost, call out missing internal links and unwarranted claims, and don’t be violent. I will try to find the easiest path to the ballot; tell me what that is.

My view of paradigms has been changed by Sierra Maciorowski: this paradigm is long because I have a lot of thoughts about debate, and because people who know me know those thoughts; anything I take out would advantage people who know me. I want to emphasize that I think it is my job to adapt to you: as long as I understand your arguments, and as long as they aren't violent, I will always prioritize the debating done in the round over anything in this paradigm.

About Me

I debated at Nueva in parli and PF and (briefly) Rice in NPDA; I currently attend Reed College. I coach parli at Crystal Springs and MVLA. I've gone for everything from the states CP to intrinsic perms to queer pess. I appreciate flexibility in my judges more than anything else, so that's what I'll try to do. Therefore, the most important things in this paradigm are higher-order questions about how I like rounds to happen, rather than which arguments I prefer.

A Note on Tech

I was a technical, fast, gamesy debater. I prefer to judge debates which fall under those lines. Do not think that this gives you a free pass to exclude non-technical teams. I am willing to intervene if I feel that a team has been skewed out of the round by tech. Here are some examples of situations in which I will intervene:

- You are repeatedly cleared and don’t make an effort to slow down. (I know, from experience, that slowing down is hard. ADHD often pushed me to go faster and get to the next argument. I will err on the side of not intervening via the ballot here, but instead intervene on my interpretation of certain arguments/the other team’s burden of rejoinder.)

- You are faster than conversational speed and do not take POIs.

- You are reading overly technical arguments/are reliant on jargon and do not take POIs.

On the flipside, if you fear that you might be skewed out of the round, please call it out before round and especially in round if you feel comfortable; this is not necessary, but it will make it much easier for me to justify intervention. In addition, I’ve tried to define most of the technical terms in this paradigm, but if there’s something I missed, please feel free to reach out! And if you ever want help with tech stuff, let me know!!

Tech vs. Truth

I will intervene on speech times, the fact that I give at most one win, and against arguments which I subjectively judge to be rhetorically violent*. Break any of these, but especially the third, and you lose with a max of 25s. Any other argument** is tech over truth as much as my biases allow.

There is almost never no risk of any argument unless an answer is cold conceded. Debaters should be much more reliant on offensive claims and warrant-level comparison than extensions of defense.

*I do not trust myself, given my positionality as a white person, to make this judgment, but I am unable to find a better solution. I therefore believe white people should be free strikes for people of color, such that people are not forced to operate in a space where some veil of objectivity in evaluating what is and is not violent is ceded to whiteness. If you are a person of color and want me to conflict you, let me know and I will do so and defend that decision to the tournament.

**There is a minimum threshold of warranting required for a claim to become an argument. Emphasizing this is important: I will not vote on claims which I do not feel have sufficient warranting to be complete arguments, even if conceded. I suspect my threshold here is (significantly) lower than most judges, but it does exist. “Conditionality is a voter – they lose” is not an argument. “Conditionality is a voter – they’ll kick out of MG offense and collapse to whatever I undercover – they lose because dropping the argument is the definition of conditionality” is. I also need arguments to be extended, explicitly, and including a warrant and an implication, in every speech. Shadow extensions don't have no risk, but they have a very small risk.


Give content warnings when applicable – err on the side of caution here. Fast debate is great, as long as it isn't used to exclude; see above. I don't want to shake your hand. Anything else: I don't care. Stand up, sit down, lie down, wear formal clothing, wear no shoes, tag team, have open cx, etc. You do you.

I will try to be non-expressive. I may fail. My expressions tend to have little to do with how I'm evaluating the arguments, and more to do with random stuff about my mood. The one exception is that if I'm not flowing anything, it's because I either don't know where on the flow you are, or I think you're repeating an argument you already made. I will try to raise my hands and make it obvious that I'm not flowing. If this mode of communication is not accessible to you, please feel free to let me know and we can come up with an alternative.

Trans debaters who submit their pronouns on tab have taken a huge risk to do so. For every instance (that I notice) in which you misgender someone who has done this, even if it’s accidental, I will deduct a full speaker point. I will also take time to write down that you did so – this may cause me to miss an argument.


I empirically average a 29.2. I will give a 30 if:

- You read an interesting K that I’m unfamiliar with.

- The LOC order is just case, and has 8 minutes of good arguments.


I will disclose and give an RFD. If you don't agree, I encourage you to argue (although I obviously can’t change my decision) – these conversations force me to be a better judge, and I found them cathartic as a competitor – obviously, this doesn’t mean you should be disrespectful, and you should always ask other judges if they’re ok with this. I'll continue these discussions as long as necessary, even post-tournament over facebook, unless I feel they're going in circles.


Evidence is important but not the be-all-end-all: good cards beat good analytics but good analytics beat bad cards. Please call out bad cards; I will not read evidence unless asked to do so or have no other way to resolve the debate.


Weighing means comparatively explaining why your offense outweighs, including your link chain and solvency mechanism. I strongly dislike “their impact is big so it’s low probability;” this is unwarranted and likely untrue. I prefer leveraging defense as a reason their impact is low probability. I like debates where weighing starts as early as possible. You get high speaks for strategic meta-weighing – meaning comparison of weighing mechanisms, eg whether magnitude or probability is more important. I will default to epistemic modesty, meaning the weight of each piece of offense is the chance they are true times the chance they outweigh.


I like to know what an argument is responding to, both in terms of top-level organization (what page are you on?) and on the line-by-line (where on the page are you?). I am very skeptical of long overviews which are not signposted as responding to specific arguments.


I enjoy specific and narrow plans with clever internal link stories much more than generic whole res affs, but I see why the latter is strategic. I love good case negs. Impact turns are extremely strategic, especially with CPs that solve the other advantage; this is one of my favorite neg strategies. In my opinion, the more time the LOC spends on case, the better the debate.


I think affs are too reliant on impact defense and unwilling to engage in people’s terrible internal link arguments. I generally think that the link debate is more important than the uniqueness debate but can be persuaded otherwise.


I am undecided on all of the relevant theoretical questions here. I love nuanced, deep solvency deficit debates and therefore dislike vague CPs that shift in the back half. I also enjoy impact turned net benefits. I think advantage CPs and PICs are super underutilized, especially when you write them during the aff to take advantage of a bad PMC arg. I will judge kick by default unless told otherwise.


I don’t have a preference for sequencing Ks vs. theory. I’m down for all of the techy K tricks, as well as ethical conditionality and performative contradictions, but also obviously open to arguments to the contrary. I like link turns and smart perms better than impact turns, but will obviously listen to either.

I may or may not be familiar with your lit; feel free to ask. By far, most of my work has been with queer theory, but I’m familiar with lots of other arguments.

One final note: 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.

K Aff

All the stuff from the K section applies.

I tend to think that the neg is better off relying on procedural fairness and limits questions – especially skews evaluation claims as terminal defense to the aff – than on defenses of policymaking. I like neg strategies which are contextualized to the aff, no matter if it's your own K, framework, or some kind of countermethodology. I think KvK debates should be more reliant on root cause claims (and corresponding link turns) and less on coalition-style perm arguments.


Competing interpretations means that I evaluate theory through an offense-defense paradigm; it does not require a counterinterpretation. A corollary is that I literally do not understand how a difference between potential and articulated abuse would function. I am, of course, willing to listen to arguments which dispute either of those claims, but they’re an uphill battle.

I will not vote for reasonability absent an explicit brightline. I prefer standards-level strength of link weighing (who has a better internal link to fairness or education) over generic fairness vs education debates, although the latter tends to be more strategic. Absent weighing, I don’t have a default preference between fairness and education. I default to dropping the argument, not the debater, on all theory questions except status theory (conditionality).

I am very down for frivolous theory. However, I am more sympathetic to RVIs(and similar tricky checks on theory: metatheory, OCIs, etc) than most judges. I won’t hack for them, but I think it’s certainly a debate. I think MOs should be much more willing to rely on these tricks, combined with reasonability arguments, to answer MGs which read multiple shells.


Sure. It’s not my favorite, but I see its utility and I’m down to evaluate it. I suspect it’s under-utilized outside of LD, and I’m very interested in its interactions with theory and the K.


Tricks are very fun when well done, but do not make me judge a bad tricks debate without framing as to why your argument affirms/negates. I default to presuming negative even if the block goes for an advocacy, but good tricks debaters will make arguments in both directions. All the stuff I said at the top about accessibility applies 1000x here.


I think IVIs are pretty cool. I need some framing beyond "this is bad" as to why it warrants a ballot, but in general I'm much more sympathetic to them than most judges are.

-------- Parli --------


Policy >>> Value > Fact. I will vote for plans on fact/value reses and tend to prefer these debates.


Pass them to the other team or repeat them twice slowly; preferably both. I expect you to have a copy for me after the round, if I need it.


I’m down to do flex if both teams agree and time permits. If not, I enjoy debates in which everyone takes POIs. I protect but POOs are always a helpful reminder, especially for critically important arguments; excessive use of POOs will tank your speaks.

The Block

I think the neg should be able to split the block. I’ll default per community norms to not allowing it, but I have a low bar for arguments that you can.

-------- LD --------

To be completely honest, I'm not certain that I'm qualified to judge LD. My engagement with tech debate is almost entirely from parli (tech parli, but parli nonetheless), so while I understand how these arguments function and should be competent at flowing/evaluating fast debates, these events obviously have very different norms in a lot of areas. I'll do my best to evaluate whatever you want to read, but you're better off leaning away from traditional phil and from embedded clash (especially long 2NR K overviews). I'm also used to much more explicit signposting than my limited experience with LD suggests y'all do.

Put me on the email chain:

Translation of speech names if you're confused about my paradigm: PMC = 1AC, LOC = 1NC, MG = 1AR, MO + LOR (parli has a block) = 2NR, PMR = 2AR.

-------- PF --------


Speech Obligations

Theoretically justify any changes to this and I'm cool.

Anything in final focuses should be in summaries, except that if second rebuttal doesn't cover their own case first summary doesn't have to either, including extending turns. To be clear, yes, this means first final focus can extend a turn from first rebuttal that wasn’t in summary, as long as it wasn’t answered in second rebuttal.

New offense in rebuttal (either, but especially second) is abusive unless it link or internal link turns their case (without external impacts) or relies on a link argument made in their case (as do impact turns). I will grant a lot of leniency to the other team in answering these arguments.

PF CX is fake. I don't flow it.


We were one of the first teams to disclose on the PF wiki the week after it came out and read disclosure theory consistently for the last two years of our career whenever we got the opportunity. I am very, very sympathetic to the argument. Additionally, if you let me know that you disclose at some point before my decision, you get an extra speaker point each.

Kollin Tierling Paradigm

5 rounds

I do not flow spreading.

Shiry Wu Paradigm

This is my first high school tournament, so I am new to everything. Please don't speak fast, I will be unable to write down all you say, and what I do not write down will probably not help you. Speak with clarity and do not use any jargon; if you do, explain what those words mean. Please explain EVERYTHING, so I understand what you are saying. Please provide well-developed arguments. I would be more impressed with two or three well-developed deep arguments over several superficial arguments. Make sure to be respectful. Thanks and have fun!

Eugenia Xu Paradigm

5 rounds

Last Updated 1/12/2020

*Please please please do not read any argument on suicide in front of me / provide graphic descriptions of anything mental health related without content warnings. Consequences may include me not being able to evaluate the debate or speak up about the fact that I cannot think about the debate resulting in me having no choice but to give you an auto loss & 0 speaks. Also, do not ask me why I can't engage with these arguments, I am under no obligation to answer that question even if I know you. I feel like this is a given but apparently it isn't. I think content warnings are good. If you want me to know anything message me on Facebook (just search “Eugenia Xu”) or email me at before the round and I'll do whatever I can to help.

tl;dr Read whatever you want as long as it’s not problematic. I’m kind of a K hack but I will be sad if they’re bad. plsplsplsnohandshakes

Hi I’m eug, I'm currently a junior debating in parli for the Nueva High School and I don't think I'm too terrible at it...? I have 3 years of background debating in parli & 4 weeks of VBI + lurking in the community worth of experience in LD. I also mod the facebook page Bad Debate Opinions (shameless plug), most of the self-deprecating jokes are me. I am a wannabe meme.

My pronouns are they/them. I have 0 tolerance for purposeful misgendering but I also don't expect everyone to be perfect.

I lean tech>truth starting from the 1AC; as the debate goes on I lean more truth>tech. I have a pretty high threshold for warranting, i.e. if you read an argument without a warrant I won’t evaluate it (if you assert that the plan helps the economy but give no explanation I won’t evaluate that argument). That applies to impacts, I default death, dehumanization and suffering bad, but you have to tell me what “economy” means in terms of those three things. All of my defaults can be disregarded if that argumentation is made in round. I've debated a lot of different things and I think I will have the ability to evaluate *most of* what you want to read. I do want you to slow down & repeat all advocacy texts and theory interps twice. I will be very happy if you pass me a text but I won’t ask you to unless it’s ridiculously long.

You can speak pretty in front of me but that's not going to improve your chances of winning or your speaker points.

Default to accessibility questions>K>theory>case and Metatheory>T>Theory but do what you want.

Ethics: Probably the most important part of my paradigm. I will auto drop you & give you 0 speaks if you impact turn/ deny structural violence & its impacts (i.e. arguments like racism good, ableism doesn't exist, antiqueerness has little/no impact, etc. This does not include arguments like cap good unless the argument is cap good because poverty good). Also auto drop & 0 speaks for using slurs. Sure, debate is a game but games can have impacts outside of the gameboard and I refuse to support argumentation that pushes marginalized communities out of debate even more by giving my ballot to them. Based on my own subject position I’m way more comfortable intervening against orientalist, linguistic, antiqueer/trans, & sexist violence, as well as certain forms of ableist violence. Doesn’t mean I won’t intervene against other kinds of violence, it just means that I’m a lot more hesitant to, say, as a solidly wealthy private school kid, decide what is and isn’t classist for other people because that seems pretty problematic.

T+Theory: I'm all for theory, I think it's really fun, and I’ve been known to read questionably theoretically legitimate shells at points in my career. My defaults are competing interps (as an offense-defense paradigm) > reasonability, drop the argument, and no RVIs. I'm very down to evaluate frivolous theory (which obviously is subjective and I’m not sure I can provide a brightline yet) though I’ll have a much higher threshold for warranting. Read a counterinterp, even if it isn’t tagged as one, make it clear what world(s) of debate that is an alternative to the interp you are defending. Text of the interp > spirit of the interp, meaning I’m binding you to the exact wording of the interpretation of debate you read, not what I arbitrarily thought you meant by it. I’m willing to be more interventionist when it comes to 2AC theory. OCIs (offensive counterinterps, meaning counterinterpretations that are read offensively; i.e. as something the reader of the interp violates) are lowkey fake but I’ll evaluate them. I’m pretty convinced that RVIs against 2AC theory are good but that’s not my default. I really like theory with K esque impacts because it's my two favorite things in debate colliding.

I’m pretty much down for whatever as far as theory goes (in terms of the shells you read or in terms of the dubiously theoretically legitimate arguments you make), but there are a few admittedly slightly arbitrary lines that can be pretty iffy for me: 1) bad (aka 99% of) spec shells, I will have a high threshold for warranting & also be very sad to vote on them; 2) ridiculously gerrymandered interps, once again, high threshold for warranting I’ll be sad; 3) frivolous theory in a round where there are serious arguments about identity being made, I WILL intervene against them.

Case: Despite what my debate career & the rest of my paradigm indicate, I'm totally down to evaluate case, but if the resolution is a bill, about a specific person, or is generally a bit obscure, do not expect me to know about it & please at least have a brief explanation. Down to vote for generics though I’d enjoy the debate more if the generics were less generic and more specific.

Framework / Impact framing: Do what you want, I'm familiar with utilitarianism & structural violence. I'm frankly bad at phil debate but I think I vaguely know how to evaluate it, chill with y’all reading consequentialism / truth testing as long as y’all explain things. I default to epistemic modesty, meaning I evaluate the strength of the impact x how much they’re winning their framework. Please do some meta weighing, it’s not done nearly enough. I default epistemic modesty.

Ks: *DO NOT READ AFROPESS IF YOU ARE NOT BLACK. I am inclined to autodrop nonblack debaters who read afropess; I’m still conflicted as to whether I as a nonblack person should be doing the callout in this way but for now this seems like the best solution. If you want to know why I think this is problematic, I’d recommend directly reading Zion Dixon, Joshua Porter, and Quinn Hughes’s article ON NON-BLACK AFROPESSIMISM.”

(for my novices, you can probably ignore this section J)

I like K strats, but they tend to either be REALLY bad or REALLY good with nothing in between. I’m more of an identity politics person than a high theory person but read whatever you want on either side of the res. Performances are cool, I’ve done quite a few of those. Very familiar (in the context of parli) with disability studies, kw/queer theory, and generics (cap, sec, biopower, etc). Have dabbled in DnG, race, setcol, and forms of fem, though don’t read any fem K in front of me that isn’t transfem or a race-based feminist criticism. Outside of strictly debate contexts I’ve looked a bit at art (particularly poetry) and magic/witchcraft/the like as revolutionary action, mostly in queer, disabled and decolonial contexts. I’ve read both optimistic and pessimistic arguments and understand how both function, though I’ve also explored what it means to reject the optimism/pessimism binary. I will actually cry if you read degger. Read T-USfg if you must, I’m more partial to it against high theory than identity politics but I’m willing to vote on it as long as it isn’t read in a problematic way. KvK is fun. Read Ks in front of me if you want feedback on a K project.

DON’T STEAL SCHOLARSHIP. Being an ally is different from speaking for others. Don’t be part of the problem.

I have 0 tolerance for kids spreading other people out with Ks and making it impossible for them to interact with their arguments. I'm probably gonna yeet your speaks pretty badly. This is the reason why K debate gets a bad rep in parli in the first place.

Speed is fine as long as both teams are comfortable with it, I'll clear you if I can't understand you but I won't penalize you for it because it's kind of bs for me to assume you know my limit on any given day. I will, however, penalize you if you refuse to accommodate your opponents when they can't understand you. I will also be skeptical if you continuously clear your opponents but speak faster than the speed you've slowed them to.

Speaks are arbitrary and I default giving every debater a 29 unless someone did something problematic outlined in my paradigm; unless I explicitly said that those actions were ones I’d give a 0 & L for, think incremental decreases in speaker points and likely nothing higher than a 27. If the tournament insists that I give different speaker points to everyone, I’ll change speaker points in increments of 0.1 so that the difference between the highest and lowest speaker is as tiny as possible. I won’t intervene against 30 speaks though I’ll squint really hard and judgmentally at you.

I protect against new arguments in the rebuttals but I'm not gonna get mad at points of order. If you POO more than twice and I think your POOs are correct I'll probably be a little more attentive to new arguments. I always say that it’s “under consideration” even if the POO is blatantly correct or false. Weighing isn’t new unless that argumentation is made. Layering arguments aren’t new unless there was a reasonable place in which the layering argument could have been before the rebuttal. New warrants usually don’t end up mattering in the scheme of the debate; in the case that one warrant makes the difference a W and a L; if it ends up mattering I’ll use the same logic of if the warrant could have come up earlier. That is also how I largely evaluate reclarifications of arguments.

Fact/value are not really my cup of tea in parli. Though I think value debate can be done well I don't really believe that fact debates can, though feel free to prove me wrong (it will take a lot). 100% totally down with framing fact/value as policy / fact as value & also totally down with Ks. Kind of very skeptical of trichot as drop the debater (or the idea that there’s a trichotomy of resolutions in general, tbh) & I'll be very sad if I have to vote on it. I think "more harm than good" = value but debate those resolutions how you want, I'm not going to intervene. In value debates, pls justify your v/vc and tell me what it means for me to evaluate arguments under your framework (i.e. theory of good and theory of right, tell me what I value and how I value it). Again, epistemic modesty.

Other things:

I love you but please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE I don't do handshakes (like seriously, fist bumps r dope)

After having a lovely conversation about this, I've decided that I will treat all final answers to POIs as binding statements to avoid a floofton of chaos that could ensue if that were not true. (s/o to Alan Fishman)

I'm probably going to disclose my decision to you & give feedback. If it takes me forever, I’ll probably tell you that it’ll be in your rfd / feedback section but if it isn’t there feel free to message / email me. Feel free to discuss my decision with me if you think I'm missing something but don't try to argue with me / push me to change my decision.

Debate however you're comfortable! I have 0 business policing your body.

I kind of really don't forking care if you swear as long as it's not done in a derogatory way.

If I am in any way making the round uncomfortable (i.e. if I ask an uncomfortable question, if I misgender you, use a term that I reclaim for my own identity that oppresses you in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable, allowing a team to mansplain at you, say something problematic, etc.) please do tell me if you feel safe doing so & we can discuss what I can do to make you feel more comfortable, or if you just want to get mad at me that’s fine too. This will not impact my decision or the speaker points I give you. Callouts & accountability are good and I welcome them at any time J That being said there’s a difference between calling me out for doing something problematic and mansplaining debate to me or invalidating my experiences. The latter I won’t listen to.

Remember that at the end of the day, we all lose rounds we shouldn’t have and whether you win or lose a round in front of me is not at all indicative of your value as a person or as a debater!

If you're confused about anything message me! 0 judgment if you do & 0 judgment if you don't message me because talking to people is hard.

Li Zhao Paradigm

Not Submitted