Tabroom.com

CCA PF Scrims

2019 — San Diego, CA/US

Debate Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Danny An Hire

Dylan beeeech Hire None

Eric Chang Hire

Last changed on Sat October 5, 2019 at 8:47 AM PDT

- I am fine with moderate speed, but not extreme spreading. If you spread to fast, I will stop flowing and just stare at you. Spreading too fast will be reflected in speaker points. Please look up at me from time to time to make sure I am ok with your speed and I understand.

- I will flow literally anything as long as it is topical, but I need to 'understand at least part of you link chain/warrants. I will vote off any of you/your opponents points, no matter how absurd, unless the points are clearly refuted and addressed.

- I will notice if you extend through ink, especially in final focus, and I certainly will not vote off of whatever you are saying. Don't think I won't notice.

- Cross doesn't really matter that much and I won't flow it. I will pay some attention to what you are saying though, so don't throw it away. If you/your opponents concede something critical in cross, mention it in your speech or it doesn't mean anything except speaker points. Please do not get out of hand, especially during grand cross, as it will be reflected in speaker points.

- Speaker points will be based off how clearly you speak, how well I can understand what you are saying, if it makes sense, your composure, eye contact and passion, and how you conduct yourself during cross. Make sure to stay calm and don't interrupt your opponent. I am ok with hand gestures, but don't go overboard.

- I will most likely vote off the standing impacts at the end of the round, so don't have secure but weak cases/responses.

- Absolutely NO mentioning any new points/cards after second summary. I will not consider these even if your opponent fails to point this time-skew out. I am fine with minimal new responses in second summary, but keep it short. You don't need to extend cards of specific impacts as long as you extend the general argument. If it isn't in summary, it doesn't exist.

- If both sides fail to gain any offense, and you have thoroughly destroyed each other's case, I will most likely vote neg on presumption, as the affirmation has failed to point out any flaws in the stat. quo. If you notice both teams have no offense, expect a neg ballot unless I am told otherwise.

- Please time yourself. If your opponents go overtime, don't make a big deal, just hold your timer up and I will notice. You have a 10 second grace period before I stop flowing and deduct speaker points.

- Please have your cards prepared. If you take longer than 30-40 seconds to get your card, I will consider it non existent. I will call for cards if you tell me too, or if I noticed there is a lot of controversy over a card. You can use wifi to use your links to cards, but nothing else

- I will not consider any theory, unless it is warranted in great detail, try to keep arguments topical

- Please stand during crossfire and sit during grand-cross.

- I am ok with off time roadmaps

Eric Chang Chang University

Last changed on Sat October 5, 2019 at 8:47 AM PDT

- I will notice if you extend through ink, especially in final focus, and I certainly will not vote off of whatever you are saying. Don't think I won't notice.

- I will most likely vote off the standing impacts at the end of the round, so don't have secure but weak cases/responses.

- I will not consider any theory, unless it is warranted in great detail, try to keep arguments topical

- Please stand during crossfire and sit during grand-cross.

- I am ok with off time roadmaps

Harshil Chava Hire 8 rounds

Saikumar Reddy Gantla Hire

Luke Huang Hire 8 rounds

Olivia Jin Hire 8 rounds

Andrew Kuang Hire

Last changed on Wed November 27, 2019 at 9:13 AM PDT

Simple stuff

you should have preflowed by the time that you start rounds

you also should have everything ready

use internet or whatever i don't really care just use the nsda rules on it just don't communicate with coaches or people that aren't in the round i'm judging

if you run theory, and win theory, that would be savage.

if you disclose, that would be cool

send speech docs if spreading lol

Constructive: don't be confusing

Crossfires

Rebuttal: when you say responses: Tell me where to flow them

this should force you to signpost (just signpost properly)

+speaks if you tell me what link/card you are responding to

when you signpost, summarize the part of their case(or what response you are frontlining for 2nd rebuttal) that you are responding to

when you move onto someone's case, tell me when or else I literally will be mad

if you jump back and forth between sides of the flow, that weird, but just tell me and it's be fine

For responses: give me a claim, warrant, and implication for each (i.e. claim: China won't build coal plants thru bri; warrant: China is currently focusing on greentech, so they won't want to build coal, implication: this means they get no offense or whatever)

For turns: weigh them, explain them thoroughly, and when i said weigh i meant as in to win a turn, you have a 1. prove it's going to happen 2. prove that it's worse than the impacts of their case/ links into their impacts better bc of magnitude, probability, timeframe, shortcircuit/prereq

for 2nd rebuttal, rebuttal has a respond to all offense, so you have to respond to turns and stuff

Weighing in rebuttal is good, and i will understand it better if you start weighing in rebuttal

Summary:

read the rebuttal stuff

extend defense

extend case

if you say the word extend, i will understand you better

backline defense/frontline or i literally won't extend it on the blow

implicate well(tell me what this means in context of the round/argument)

new weighing is fine, but i would prefer for it to be in rebuttal

Final:

whatever lol

Iain Law Hire

Justin Liu Hire

Last changed on Fri March 4, 2022 at 5:42 AM PDT

updated for la costa 2020:

I'VE BEEN OUT OF DEBATE FOR MANY MONTHS. i used to judge practice rounds pretty often but i haven't in a while, so apologies if i'm not flowing everything very fast or i take a while for my decision.

--------------------------------------

canyon crest '20, georgetown '24

justinliu92130@gmail.com or jyl79@georgetown.edu

There is no "o" in "Public" so if you call it "PoFo" within earshot of me then I am calling the police.

I'll shake your hand unless you're sick or a GW/AU commit.

I submit my ballot after giving my RFD, so my Venmo is @liujustin1 if you're unhappy with my RFD. Don't post-round, just handle it like someone over the age of six would.

About myself:

I have four years of PF experience at Canyon Crest Academy/Carmel Valley (SoCal) with three years on the circuit. Please don't pander to me outside or inside of round, don't be racist, don't be sexist, don't be classist, but flaming your opponent is fine as long as it doesn't get personal. I'll probably boost your speaks if you do.

I was president of the team in my senior year, so please tell me if CCA/Carmel Valley has made anybody uncomfortable or been rude so I can complain to the new team leadership like a boomer. The speech and debate community was very close to a second home for me in high school and I want to keep it healthy.

I got a silver bid once. Don't ask me how STOC went - you'll just ruin my day.

MY LD/POLICY/PARLI/CONGRESS PARADIGM:

hehe

MY PF PARADIGM:

Short version:

tech > truth

please signpost

no new offense after first summary

no theory/k, i know real abuse when i see it

if you want something evaluated, have it in summary and also final

i am the rare judge who doesn't actually care too much about weighing

i am very big about accessing impacts, so make sure you extend accurately and signpost clearly

Long version:

General guidelines:

i judge how i want to be judged.

tech > truth.

no crazy theory/k. i know abuse when i see it. if i can't see it, it's probably not bad enough for you to sacrifice round content to read a long shell about something.

no plans or cp's either.

i think that pf debate is about what you say and not who you are, and any identity-based self-activism that isn't topical but that you want to affect the ballot is probably better for the ld or policy spheres. but if there's microaggressions or something egregious, i'll be more than happy to drop your opponent for it, especially if they're rude or dismissive about it.

coin flip while i'm present. the flip tension is the most exciting part of pf.

i'll only allow new evidence in summary if it's for a frontline or a frontline's frontline (so A2A2 or A2A2A2 for some people). no new evidence in final.

if it isn't in summary, it doesn't exist. continuing off of this, if it isn't in final, it doesn't exist either. if your partner only extends warrant 1 in summary but you only extend warrant 2 in final, you don't get either warrant.

if you don't terminalize your impacts, i will do it myself (probably to your detriment, since every debate impact is over exaggerated).

debate should be fun, so i will happily evaluate meme cases/weird args unless sensitive topics are emphasized in round.

please signpost.

if both teams have exactly no offense at the end, i default to the first speaking team. this will probably never happen.

no card-checking during crossfire (unless you give it to your partner - the non cross participant - to read). if you're wondering "what about during grand cross, when all four debaters participate?" then you're calling for a card after summary. please don't call for a card after summary.

call for a card, but read it during your own prep if you won't give it to your partner during cross. wi-fi is fine to pull up cards that you have linked.

i'll time your speeches (5-10 second grace periods after each speech), but not your prep. that's your opponent's job.

speak as fast as you want to, but do not sacrifice clarity for speed. "turn their impact" makes more sense than "aslkdjflkjaslejjfiowjejflkdfj".

if you spread, email me and your opps a speech doc. if you're going to speak faster than your opponents can comprehend - even if you aren't spreading - please give them a doc or slow down so they can understand you. inclusivity is priority #1 for debate. i will not allow you extra time to type up a doc, even if for accessibility purposes.

Round tactics:

Please extend cards as name (date only necessary if there's multiple cards with the same name) and some substance (in context of the flow is fine if you're accurate and clear. ex: "the second carded response on their second warrant that says xyz"). I will still extend cards if they are only named, although it won't help you if things get muddled and I get confused.

Any ink still left on your flow gets evaluated at the end.

If you extend an argument, summarize how you access it and its impacts (with numbers, preferably). Don't extend a contention without frontlining or at least acknowledging all critical links. I will notice if you drop your opponents' responses.

If you decide to kick out of an argument, tell me. I'll know when stuff is dropped, but it fares better for your speaks and my feedback when I know whether a drop was done purposefully or on accident. The easiest way to do this is to explicitly concede a delink.

Both summaries should frontline. Because of the new PF speech times introduced in 2019, first summary now has to extend defense to access it.

I will evaluate analytical (cardless) rebuttals, but only with solid warranting. This is where truth could come in over tech. Depends on how accurate you are and also what I know.

I "like" crossfire whether it goes "well" or "poorly." I like a good cross but I probably won't be paying attention, because a good cross to me is one I don't have to worry about. I won't evaluate anything said in cross, but every time you destroy your opponent based epic style with facts and logic in cross, I boost your speaks. If you're cringe, you lose speaks. Grand crossfire works one of two ways for me: 1) It isn't a yelling match and it gives me a general idea of who is winning what voter. 2) It becomes a yelling match and it's stressful for you but very funny for me.

Evaluation:

I default to lives > econ. Convince me otherwise.

I will evaluate policy-type big impact turns like "nuke war good" or "death good" if you warrant sufficiently, but I'm not inclined to agree with them. I won't evaluate "nazi good" or things like that because it's just racist and stupid. Please don't turn racism/sexism/etc.

I study politics, international relations, and warfare/military history and strategy. Please don't say something dumb like "China has more soldiers than America so they will win in a war" or "deficit spending causes recessions." Actually warrant stuff like this. Again, tech > truth overall, but I'll be less likely to buy this kind of stuff when things get muddled.

I won't intervene unless someone asks me to call a sus card or there's a medical issue.

I will try to clarify facts or topic knowledge to the best of my ability after round for your own educational benefit if I'm familiar with the topic (and so you don't get screwed in later rounds by someone who may know more about something), but mistakes or unknowns that aren't capitalized on by your opponents won't be weighed on my ballot.

I would appreciate if you weighed for me, but I will weigh arguments myself if you do not. I prioritize probability, which is followed closely by magnitude. If you want to use some less-known weighing mechanisms like reversibility, tell me in your speech why it is more important than probability.

If you run a non-CBA (cost-benefit analysis) framework, spend ample time on why it is the better framework. I think frameworks like "The resolution says 'United States' so we should only weigh impacts on Americans" are stupid and you should not run them. You would need to do a lot of warranting and explaining to even remotely justify these types of frameworks to me and it would be hard without sounding like an ultranationalist.

Narratives are cool.

Deception:

If you go up and say "unresponded to," "unrefuted," or "never responded to," but your opponents did respond adequately, I'll be less inclined to vote for you if the round is close. I won't vote you down for "lying," but I will not frame the round the way you want me to because you're demonstrating that you're snaky and deceptive. Please DO NOT be that team that only speaks well and can't debate. Spend your energy on argumentation - you won't have to worry about coercing my ballot with speaking unless I literally cannot understand you.

If you bring up new evidence or arguments in final focus, I will be very sad.

If you powertag intentionally or if you clip evidence in a significant way, I will be very sad and report you to your coach and tab.

Speaks:

If you're one of those teams, you might find yourself asking me "What's the easiest way to get a 30?"

Unless you go 6-0 regularly and want to get first seed or something, don't worry about your speaks. You'll win the round if you beat your opponent on the flow.

The easiest way to get a 30: Don't fumble your strategy or words and display solid partner synergy. Make it seem like you and your partner have debated this round a million times prior to now.

30: You're alright.

29.5: oh yeah yeah

29: oh yeah

28.5: yeah

28: nice

27.5: ok

27: hmm

26.5: hmmmm

26: yash gupta

25.5: yash gupta

25: yash gupta

0: just stop doing debate man

Conan Lu Hire None

Syon Mansur Carmel Valley Independent 8 rounds

Aqil Naeem Hire

Last changed on Fri March 29, 2024 at 4:26 PM EDT

I'm a typical flow judge that did decently well in PF while I was involved (qualled twice, won a quarters bid, etc). Only a few caveats:

1) I hate speech docs. I will not flow off the doc but off what I hear. I've never been unable to flow speed in PF (so far). If you go too fast, I'll ask for a doc.

2) I like evidence comparison, but comparisons that make me actually think are not good. Lay it out for me. Analyze the discrepancy, why it matters, and how it impacts my choice as a judge.

3) I hate weighing. Weighing is obviously a must, but I feel too much of recent debates I've judged have been "meta-weighing" and just back and forth on weighing as opposed to substance. I really like it when there's some clash on weighing, but even more emphasis on how people win the actual substance of the argument and how the arguments implicate under the weighing. I'd prefer you to add how your contention fits your opponent's weighing mechanism more than you reading pre-written reasons why your weighing mechanism is good.

4) As hinted earlier I dislike things that are pre-written (especially rebuttal and summary). Makes for boring debate and ruins the educational value of each round. I won't dock speaks (my partner also only read off a doc lmao), but I will not give you a 30. I'm looking for responses in rebuttal that are specific to the particular details in your opponent's case, weighing/frontlines in summary that are also pertinent to the debate, etc. I'm here to judge your ability as debaters, not readers lol.

5) I know how to evaluate theory from my LD days (a long time ago, keep that in mind), but not Ks that aren't simple like Cap Ks. If you decide to run these arguments, I hope you're okay with a possible judge screw, or ready to explain the crap out of your argument. The best explanations often end with "_____ means that you vote for _____"

6) I know I'm asking you to explain a lot and terminalize it into my decision, but I feel that's the only way for me to limit judge intervention. I will never make a cross-application of arguments/weighing/anything for the team- make it yourself. I will not presume for a side for you either. If somehow I have to presume I'll vote for the team with higher speaks, then deduct 2 points from both teams.

7) Most importantly have fun, keep it civil, and enjoy the tournament. If there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know!

Razeen Tameem Nasar Hire

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 3:48 PM EDT

They/them ( Ask for other ppls in rounds pls!!)

You can call me whatever. Razeen, Judge, ご主人様.

email chain: razeennasar1@gmail.com

As a judge I critique y'all with feedback. However, I feel judges can't be told about their competency. Especially with the position of authority. Please don't see me as an all-knowing authority figure. I am a student just like y'all. I sleep, go to school sometimes, and am a disappointment to my parents. I'm human not a debate robot. You can use this form to criticize my judging without having your name attached. Or say I'm not lame and I did well.

Note: everything cut down word wise so it takes less time. Hence bare bone wording. Pls ask for elaboration irl :) Based on average reading speed TLDR will take 1 minute, whole thing 6.5 minutes of reading. Immensely cut down from initially 20 min(egregiously long).

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeRkloyjH8sARng_HNNNPtHhlMFaIrPK0jekgp7bspJ9jppeg/viewform?usp=sf_link

Speaks:

If you look at my speaking points history I'm generally pretty generous. If you do 4 things for me I will give you 30 speaks for free!

Ask your opponents for pronouns or just have some exchange related to that in round
Email me your case so I can read along while you read your case (if I miss anything I can reference back or re-read during cross). Don't make excuses about why you can't. If you don't want to then just don't do it. The only exception I will make is if you show me the TOURNAMENT doesn't allow me.
Finish your speech coherently and use like 95% of your time with legitimate substance.
Send evidence efficiently and don't waste time in between speeches or waste time in general.

For every one missed I'll doc 1.25 speaks. If you are just mean or rude to your opponents then I'll just give an auto L with 25 even if you win on the "flow".I have no tolerance for being mean :) I will try my best to find reasons to vote against people who are borderline mean through the flow too. A respectful environment is a prerequisite to people feeling comfortable to debate! All these asks for me are EXPECTATIONS, not preferences!

SHORT I DONT WANT TO READ AN ENTIRE THING OF NONSENSE BUT I WANT TO KNOW THE JIST:

Did HS PF debate+ college parli. was okay in HS pretty good in college now.

Mostly, Tech>Truth. However, don't use tech to bully. Still subconsciously influenced by bias. Uncontrollable. Some arguments I inherently understand more.

IF IM MAKING EYE CONTACT THAT MEANS I AM CONFUSED AND DON'T KNOW WHERE TO FLOW NOT THAT I AM LISTENING INTENTLY!!! IF YOU TAKE ANYTHING AWAY TAKE THIS!!! At one point I get self-conscious if I look too much in confusion when I don't know what to flow and look down. >~<

Pf 2nd rebuttal frontlines. No New Offense FF not in summary. Policy/LD don't know extension norms thus gonna be forgiving w/ extensions.

Generally against tech being topicality, Theory, and Ks Would consider non-disingenuously for real abuse/problematic rhetoric.

Spreading can't flow fast so it's bad. Don't sound like you are drowning.

Extinction big no no. Unless topic calls for it. No daylight savings causes extinction(real round)

Make sure not same impact scenario. Don't weigh Nuke war w/ Russia against Nuke war w/ Russia on magnitude. Compare links. Talk about uniqueness.

I prefer warranted low magnitude high probability vs high magnitude low probability. Even if an argument outweighs, if it isn't extended well and I can't explain it I won't vote off it. Argument understandability is a prereq to voting on any argument for me. I have ALOT of rounds where I vote for an impact cuz it's the only one explained.

Jargon pls no. I barely know prog debate.

Don't expect me to understand afro-anthropessimism pre-post modern feminist neo liberal hauntology @400WPM.I barely understand my college lecturers at 1/4th that speed. even at normal pace without accessible wording I won't get it. 100% have not read your arg lit before. Need slow good explanation for new concepts to me aka most of arguments.

Don't assume I remember what each author said. I don't remember 1/2 of UCSD debaters in a quarter. You think I'm gonna remember aiusdbh 13 from the 1NC 45 minutes ago.

PF DEBATE

-----------------

Pls email me your cases before the start of the round.

Pls frontline in 2nd rebuttal rather than 2nd summary

I will vote off turns if not blippily read and make sense.

Pls use voters in the final focus and COLLAPSE. I'm serious about collapsing.

I... am lazy and use single-use paper plates cuz I don't like doing dishes, but also my romantic partner is in marine biology and roasts me for single use plastic... aka I can see both sides :)

POLICY DEBATE

------------------

Don't understand "new sheets" and flowing is hard. Though i try my best. Most decision focused on 1/2 AR/NR. Better to be honest it's hard for me than lie. Sorry! I will try to be as informed as possible by the round. Pls bear with my stupidity. Know I'm trying my hardest to give a good decision.

PARLI DEBATE

--------------------

I compete in college parli. I have no clue what the norms are in HS parli. College parli is basically policy without the cards. So that is how I see parli. Pls don't try to spread it's already painful to hear in college. If it's the norm I'm fine with topicality and Counterplans. Please don't read an aff K, and if that isn't a norm yet thank god. I am open to K arguments if it isn't used to shut out opponent and outspread them with complicated jargon.

I have won 4 college parli tournaments this past year so like I feel like I know what's up with parli.

I love debates that are on topic and have relevant and easy to understand arguments that have nuance!

Longer preferences

--------------------

I am an idiot

---------------

I'm stupid, not a humble statement. Don't let the absurd length fool you. It's a sign of insecurity, not knowledge. This is at the top for a reason. I make wrong decisions when forced to think myself. Verbally make a speech that I can nearly mimic in my RFD.

I'm not competing so don't assume I know topic-specific acronyms/words are. Common sense ideas to you aren't common sense to most people. I can't figure out push or pull doors don't think I can figure out your argument.

Debate jargon for prog is a no no. Just take the couple of extra seconds to explain. Don't assume arguments. Explain things like "fairness/education voter" and "reasonability means judge intervention" even though seems common sense explain why these are good/bad.

Fully explain all your args. The reasons why an argument is logically true beyond evidence.

Don't say extend from past speech. I already forgot that last speech bro. I have the short-term memory of a goldfish. Think of it this way, in your classes if your teacher says expanding on what was said 15 minutes ago, and doesn't somewhat reexplain there is simply confusion.

Access

--------

Don't use tech debate as a way to bully new debaters. Tech is meant to make debate fairer, and challenge knowledge. Instead, it's become a tool used by the privileged to win silly arguments with coach-made responses that less-resourced schools can't beat. Don't contribute to bad debate norms I will be sad.

Experience:

HS PF+ College Parli. was mid in HS (4-3 STOC). College I got better & have won tournaments. College parli is budget policy w/out cards. However, I'm mostly a topical debater. Vaguely understand/use CPs/T/Ks/Theory.

General debate

------------------

In short, I will try to find the quickest way and clearest way to vote. If an argument is messy I'll likely vote off something way smaller that may not even outweigh. I want your last speeches to be what you want me to say in my RFD.

Tech Truth?

I am generally tech over truth with a couple of exceptions

When tech is used as a means to exclude
Dump low-quality args hoping for drops.
Arguments are clipped
Borderline false args e.g Nuke war good(low threshold for response)

Case

Please send case. Allows me to flow. Flowing helps me keep track. More likely to vote for yall. Also just good practice.

Rebuttals

Please try to signpost. By that I mean if you directly say, which response with things like " on x argument, their yth response about z we have x amount of responses. or if it's 1 response give the response.

Also, please don't say "no evidence, no warrant, no explanation" rather explain why the lack of a warrant means their argument is false and what it actually is like. Also, I am down for logical arguments. Not everything needs to be carded if it's analytical. If something is analytical like "no one wants to be nuked" and you say nO eViDenCe then there is no way I'm voting on the response.

Final speeches:

Please voters. Frame independent reasons to vote rather than line by line. go reasons why you win, and cover defense/turns on their offense.

Line by line = Line w/out the ine.

While I try to exclusively flow. Directing me on the flow can make me interpret the flow in a better way for y'all. Will focus on what I'm told to. So focus on best args.

Pls collapse. 1 good arg>3 bad arguments. Either you collapse or my mental health collapses.

Don't say "extend (author)" or "extend my response on x argument." extend what the author says or the argument itself. If you don't explain your arguments and just assume I know them I won't vote for them!

-----------------

Weighing

-----------------

I.Will.Do.Anything.I.Can.To.Not.Vote.On.Bad.Extinction.Scenarios.Within.my.Power.as.a.Judge.

Exceptions are topics that kinda rely on those ideas. Like Conflict for NATO/ great power conflict. Or climate change for PRC econ or enviro. Heavily prefer against it.

Probability weighing:

Fleshed-out arguments are rewarded. Don't go for the "risk of offense infinite magnitude extension multiply infinity." not gonna vote on that. arg of "risk of offense" means you aren't good enough to defend case. a low chance of your case to me is a 0 chance. However, the opponent needs to win probability claims.

Same/similiar impact weighing:

Make sure you aren't having exact same or similar impact to the opponent then OW on "magnitude"

Many topics have different sides same impact. Rather than weigh impacts you compare links or compare uniqueness. Uniqueness is the better route for me. 2 possible ways to deal w/ clash IMO.

1.Mostly look to Uniqueness 70% of time. Is SQUO going good or nah. If going well why fix something that isn't broken. Inversely, if things going wrong we need to take action to fix.

2. Distinguish impacts. Explain why your scenario uniquely links more. Maybe it's more specific. It affects more countries. It has bigger actors. Your link bigger than theirs. Whatever way to show e.x how your link into nuke war is better than theirs.

---------------------------

Progressive Debate

---------------------------

Structural Violence: Only prog argument I vibe with. Main it center of your narrative. Don't make it secondary defeats the purpose of prioritizing underprivileged if you deprioritize them by dropping arg on it.

Spreading: I can't follow it at all. I'll try to follow doc. Tell me what you cut from it. Heavily prefer not. Don't use as a way to shut out opponents. Will insta L.

Topicality:Don't read to add an extra layer. I will be sad. Don't make bad debate norms. Abusing new teams w/out resources to learn about debate in the meta sense is shameful. Only read if legit non-topical. If actually hurts ability to debate use it. Don't say "fairness/education voter" explains why. Default reasonability.

Kritik:I PROMISE I don't know your lit. I am stupid. keep it simple. Don't use area-specific lingo. If you have to have heard it before to know it don't read it. If you can't be simple w/ it that means you don't know it. Kinda troll nowadays become cancelling your opponent for "insert ism"

I have, lately, been more sympathetic to them in certain instances. I am fine with Kritiks on nuke war impacts, western construction of "terrorists," Orientalism on China impacts, Democracy promotion bad/ causes othering, AI deserving rights, Speed bad K, and tech debate bad K. Ultimately, I won't want to vote on a K that can be linked to anything and any topic. I feel that anything that is legit misunderstood and really messed up to the point where it shouldn't be "seen from both sides" is a place I would legit evaluate a Kritik.

K aff: No lol. screams "I'm not good enough to defend the topic, and I'm lazy." If you feel passionate anyway read it.

Theory:Frivolous theory will lead to AUTO L 25. Won't deal with it. Default RVIs. Minimal experience judging theory. The threshold for abuse is high. Must prove in-round abuse, not potential abuse.

MISC

----------------

If you made it down here Idk why you wasted time reading this far lol

Disclose decision:

Yes, if tourney allows. Will try to be quick. Will try to be constructive as possible. If not being constructive lmk. Want to talk about strengths, improvement areas, the round itself, if you loss potential paths to the ballot. For winning team how to make more clear. A lot of apologizing. Pls if you have an issue bring it up w/ me directly rather than say stuff outside of round. I want to clarify and not "judge screw" as I had that as a debater I felt and ik the frustration. If you found RFD good bad you can give feedback on form.

If flight 1 goes quickly I will give feedback. If y'all troll with timing I'll just type my feedback. I assume y'all prefer to hear, just start the round ASAP.

NDCA wiki:

If you disclose that's cool and awesome! However, I'm not receptive to disclosure theory in PF. In other events, if used to bully new debaters that won't be tolerated.

Decorum:

The presentation has a subconscious effect on everyone. Will try to prevent that.

No tolerance for rude debaters. Will drop if bad enough rudeness. Don't be overly rule stigent/ talk over people/ be snarky/make too many faces. Also, will lower speaks. Be nice! Isn't hard. Will give high speaks otherwise.

IRL politics:

Pure tab judge is impossible and fake. IRL knowledge sphere is Marxism. not the "government does stuff" leftism though. Fine with being critical of America and the economy.

Eric Park Hire 8 rounds

Alex Tahan Hire

Alex Tahan Tahan 8 rounds

Sanjim Uppal Hire

Cameron Velasquez Hire 8 rounds None

Jason Yang Hire

Last changed on Tue January 10, 2023 at 4:37 AM PDT

**UPDATE: I have not judged debate since Cal 2022. If you want to win, please start at 60% of your top speed and during rebuttals and please slow down on arguments you want me to actually evaluate. I swear nobody actually reads this so if you do read this, please tell me you read this before round and i will give u +0.5 speaker points.

*****

the most important thing of all: i am annoyed by how often i get postrounded by debaters who expected me to vote on an argument that was very unclearly articulated / basically not explained at all. if you want to win with argument x, please invest some time in your speech to explain argument x.

in the absence of arguments claiming otherwise, i will default to these:

neg presumption

tech > truth

comparative worlds

competing interps, rvis bad, drop the debater

fairness is most definitely a voter, education may or may not be

debate is probably a good activity (i am very neutral towards this and can easily be convinced otherwise)

******

background: canyon crest 20, duke 24

canyoncrestjy@gmail.com

please dont shake my hand

I debated 4 years of LD at Canyon Crest. I've done it all/tried everything out at one point or another -- policy, theory/tricks, nontopical, identity, high theory, etc. Thus, I care less about what you read and more about how you execute it.

Personally, I hated judge paradigms that said "i dont like x" or "i wont evaluate y" -- i believe this is your debate space, not mine.

i like fast debate -- slow debate is truly insufferable. this, however, is a double edged sword -- if you do fast debate terribly you will be punished for it.

there is a difference between being assertive and being an ass in cx

if you justify racism/genocide/bigotry good, you'll lose with the lowest speaks possible. if you lose to racism/genocide/bigotry good, please go home and reconsider if debate is for you.

things i like:

being a chiller, weighing your arguments, objectively winning the debate/doing anything that makes my job easier

things i dislike:

thanking me for being here, the phrase "off-time roadmap", the phrases " i stand in firm affirmation/negation", the phrase "Time starts in 3, 2, 1, now", a messy debate (this is different from a very close debate), 0 clash, vague/lack of signposting, using unnecessary strategies against novices/those obviously less skilled than you (this is your fastest ticket to the 25-26 speaker pt range)

Benjamin Zhao Hire

Login to Tabroom

CCA PF Scrims

2019 — San Diego, CA/US

Debate Judges Paradigm List

Judges