Last Update: January 7, 2022

I competed in various forms of debate for five years on the college level however, I primarily competed in NPDA and LD Debate. I competed for Moorpark College (more traditional debate) and Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley (Nat circuit tech debate). At the 2021 NPDA I got to Semis and NPTE I got fifth in season-long rankings and fifth at the NPTE itself. I am ecstatic to see the future generation of debaters compete as a judge with that being said let’s get onto my judging philosophy which is probably the only thing you care about and are reading this for.

TLDR: As the great, powerful, wise debater Brian Yang once said "Go Nuts!" to be a bit more specific my paradigm is heavily influenced by Trevor Greenan, Brian Yang, Tom Kadie, Jessica Jung, and Ryan Rashid so I would expect paradigm similar to them. In order of probably what I am probably best/most experienced judging Theory/Tricks/Larp/K 1, Phil 2 (just not as experienced although I did debate it a bit and learned from Phil debaters so I understand it and can judge it pretty competently) (Advice: For Parli Paradigm questions look to sections 1-4 for evidence debate gloss over section 1 real quick only a few things there matter then look to sections 2-5, for extra salt, info, and general advice include 6,7) bold/highlighted text is generally the more important stuff I would recommend looking at though the rest of it provides a lot of context and stuff so I would read everything there will in fact be a pop quiz... jkjkjkjkjk.... unless........

Table of Contents:

1. General Philosophy

2. Case Debate

3. Theory

4. Kritiks

5. Evidence Debate Specific

6. Contact Info

7. Uniqueness Rant... (no need to look to with regards to paradigm questions just tired of giving the same feedback lol)

My current views for debate, in general, are as follows:

1. General Philosophy:

A) Tech over Truth: Wtf is "Truth" honestly the fact that you vote on the flow shouldn't be an opinion you have it should be a requirement otherwise what is the point of having a judge other than to have some rando arbitrarily and most likely with prejudice decide on random claims it doesn't seem like a very fun event in that world but rather idk an event coated by some serious paternalism coded by all sorts of isms? I know I have def been screwed over before by judges that thought something was "true/untrue" when they were just wrong and describing something I did entire research papers on being like okkkk buddy...
B) Partner communication: I only flow what the recognized speaker says unless you have some sort of framework, performance, or theory justification that is won. Communicate as much or little as you want you do you.

C) Protecting the flow: I do try to protect the flow to the best of my ability. However, I would still recommend calling points of orders just in case I miss something.

D) Things that make me unhappy :( I reserve the right to drop anyone for being bigoted will cause me to drop the team given the real-world implications and harm that it creates.

E) Speaks: I have decided that speaks are probably disablist, sexist, racist, etc. particularly in debate events and as such I will give each team the highest possible speaks be it block 30s and 29.9 or descending by whatever the tournament allows. The exception is if your racist, sexist, antisemitic, disablist, transphobic, homophobic, or any of the phobics or antis or isms (come close to breaking this rule a couple of times although I haven't had to yet...). If I can’t give block scores I will give the winners higher speaks and the losers the lower ones descending.

F) Views on spreading: You do you I can flow. My partner Will White was probably one of the fastest debaters when going max speed so it's highly unlikely you can spread me out as Will could hit like 450WPM without cards and I could flow.

G) Shadow Extensions: I believe Shadow Extensions are new arguments. (A shadow extension is an argument dropped during the member speeches that magically reappears in the rebuttal speeches)

H) Extensions:

I. When extending an argument should it be untouched I am okay with a simple extend _____ there is no need to reexplain as long as your arguments related will not be new and only weighing in the rebuttal speeches. However, if you are planning to leverage it against another argument on the flow you need to explain how it applies.

II. If you are kicking something you do need to say "kick this" or "extend their we meet" or whatever "we're not going for it"

III. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE EXTEND YOUR VOTERS ON THEORY.

I) Cross-Applications in Rebuttals: I believe that cross applications through other sheets of paper are new arguments. For example, if you make an argument on theory and then in the rebuttal speeches apply it to case or K when it is only on theory in the flow and you don't say it applies to case or K that would be a new argument.

J) Words that you say when other people are speaking for lack of a better term: Slow and speed mean to slow down, Clear means to talk clearer not necessarily to slow down, Text means to pass the text, signpost means to say where you're at on the flow.

K) Written copies) Please give me written/typed copies of your advocacies/ROJ/ROB/Interps/counterinterps in case I miss something important. What you write down is the interp is what I will follow unless contested and told to do otherwise. I may ask for clarification after the speech and before the next speech before time starts for the exact wording.

L) Weighing) Absent weighing done for me by the debaters I default to Strength of link>magnitude>probability>timeframe.

2. Case Debate:

A) Affirmative:

I. Policy:

a. Have a plan text and preferably advantages. Other than that it is pretty much up to you and your opponent. I do enjoy a good Heg, econ, and Uniqueness solves the case debate for Tix if you can't think of anything...

b. Advantages: Preferably in the formats of Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, then Impacts or Uniqueness, Links, Impacts. Make sure your uniqueness is going in the right direction, explain your links, and terminalize your impacts. I would love it if you would give me clear links not just plan passes and war, explain how you get to war. Don’t just say death and expect me to do the work for you. If you say gut check as a wise man once told me “I will gut check everything and you may not like that.”

II. Value: Should have a criteria and contentions. You don't need a Value Criteria in addition to your regular one but if you want to provide one strategically that is up to you. Preferably for both Contentions and Countercontentions on the Negative, the structure I usually ran was H.I.S. (Harms, Impact, Solvency) with harms being the harms of the opposing value, Impacts being the impacts of that, and Solvency being the solvency for using your value but I understand there are many different structures and not every value round is capable of having that clear of a structure so how you run it is up to you.

III. Fact: You should have a criteria and contentions. Your contentions should preferably have impacts and not just be statements otherwise it is very hard to weigh the debate.

B) Negative:

I. DAs: refer to section 2.a.I.b. on advantages.

II. Counterplans: some of my favorite debates are plan CP debates having originally been coached by one of the “inventors” of the CP. I’ll vote on any type of perm textual, functional, one with net benefits, severance, intrinsic, timeline, etc. if it’s won. I default to perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. Also going for Severance and going for your aff is not a double turn just two independent win conditions unless the opposing team makes/wins an arg that it is. If a perm hasn't been argued as either a test of competition or advocacy come the 2AR my default is locked and I will consider it a test of competition and any argument as to the contrary as new.

III. Presumption: I default to presumption flows Neg unless the neg runs an advocacy/Alt/CP in which case it flips AFF absent a framework argument that is argued that it is negative. If you’re condo and kick it I default to it flips back to the neg but am open to arguments that it stays aff. Side note: I default permissibility affirms

IV: Offense V Defense: if you clearly articulate how it is terminal defense and presumption is still negative ground I will vote on it. Generally, I vote along a very heavy offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

V: Condo V Uncondo: Default to all plans are condo unless the status is asked and they say not condo. IDC how you run it up to you. Also like the great Amanda Miskell says “Dispo is just Condo in a suit” jkjkjkjk even though it isn't tbh most of the same standards level offense will be triggered on a theory position maybe you get some additional education offense depending on conditions but it seems minimal to me but meh whatever you do you. I don't care one way or another on condo will vote on condo bad (if won) as much as I will vote for infinite condo good (if won) fun math proof for infinite condo here ( I don't think it's fully accurate but its def fun/funny lol): https://debatedrills.com/en/blog/defense-infinite-conditionality/ .

VI: Judge Kick: I don't default to judge kicking the CP but if you win that I should judge kick that's fine. I also think that responses to judge kicking coming out of the PMR in response to new MO framing should be to drop the argument not drop the debater.

3. Theory:

A) Structure: It should preferably have an Interp, Violation, Standards, and Voters. Unless it is an IVI, RVI, paragraph theory all of which I will vote for.

I. Interpretation:

a. No preference for or against any type of Theory run whatever you and friv theory = FUN. Condo bad, no neg fiat, Ks Bad, AFC, Spec, Topicality, Trichot, tropicality, neg gets to split the block, etc. (although I will likely be heavily biased against theory that calls out someone's personal appearance and/or the way they dress... to the point I most likely will intervene and not vote for it but I haven't fully decided on that yet)

II. Violation: probably should clearly articulate the violation even if so blatantly obvious and not just they violate but it can be quick if it’s very clear like if you run F-Spec, just say “they didn’t specify the funding mechanism in the PMC” or something like that.

III. Standards:

a. Your standards should provide clear links to each voter that they work in conjunction with Fairness, Education and/or accessibility and work as reasons to prefer your theory sheet. Ideally, they should be contextualized to the round/interp rather than just general descriptions of the standard.

IV: Voters

a. To vote on theory I need clear explained voters don’t just say Apriori, fairness, and education and expect me to vote on them you need to terminalize those voters and what they mean. For example, with education you could say that education is the reason debate exists and without education, nobody would do debate and it collapses or for fairness say that if the round is unfair we cant evaluate arguments to tell if they're true. Or on fairness, we cant test their arguments/methods/ it skews eval etc.

b. For theory, I have no preference for reasonability vs. competing interpretations and will vote on how you tell me to vote. though I will say I have no idea what reasonability means until you provide some sort of bright line like winning all the Counterstandards and standards or something I dunno your argument you figure out what it will be and without a brightline, I just go back to competing interps

c. I default to drop the team, competing interps, no RVIs, Fairness>education (tho ig it would depend on the impact justifications under this model I am assuming skews eval/truth testing as your fairness impact), Text>Spirit, Pragmatics>Semantics.

d. Abuse: I default to potential abuse is sufficient as CInterps would cause me to evaluate under a risk of offense paradigm comparing the two interps not necessarily what happened in a given round. Unless a very good argument for articulated abuse is given most likely with some sort of reasonability framework being won.

e. A “we meet” that is won is a no link to a theory shell even under competing interpretations unless argued otherwise and very clearly won in the debate. While you can weigh the risk of offense on some level of the we meet if they only meet part of your interp i.e. they don't fully violate like a no link on one of the potential scenarios on a DA. To achieve terminal defense the we meet would likely have to fully meet the interp, some framing claim as to why a partial meeting is sufficient to not evaluate the sheet, and/or the we meet is generated via an interp flaw which means they can't solve their offense given they wrote they're interp bad allowing you to meet.

B) IVIs/RVIs/paragraph theory/Kritikal Turns: I will vote on them if you win them and have clear links and reasons why I should vote on them, tell me how to vote on them and framing/sequencing. I will vote on an RVI but I probably have a slight bias against them. I default to no RVIs but if you win the RVI framing I will vote on it. Also, this is something I have noticed in parli it seems what an RVI is has gotten lost in translation from Nat Circuit LD to Parli, the way I understand it is how it is understood in nat circuit LD i.e. it is a framing claim with regards question of the directionality of offense if you win that something is an RVI you win that offense is Bidirectional, not Unidirectional as under a no RVI theory on framework so saying we get an RVI is sufficient to get an RVI but not sufficient to win an RVI as to win an RVI begs the question of whether you won the theory sheet in itself (when judges vote for bidirectional offense on a K they are voting for an RVI shhhh... don't tell them), if you do and you win you get an RVI and that theory is the highest layer you would then trigger a win condition most likely. The way they've become translated for the most part in parli is just IVIs saying theory is bad not RVIs.

4. Kritiks: Run whatever you want (yes, I know that these examples don't fit cleanly into each category and can fit into several just giving examples) be it more sociological like Cap, Set Col, antiBlackness, Psychoanalysis like Lacan (sidenote: Nietzsche Stan so like the implications of that are generally not the biggest Lacan/psychoanalysis fan in general though I will vote for it just not enjoy myself), or POMO like Nietzsche, Baudrillard, DNG, "eastern" philosophy (probably my fave tbh) like Taoism or Buddhism, your Deont 1AC/NC, and ofc your nailbomb 1AC, IDC I vote on the flow. Don't assume I know your lit even though I know a pretty big lit base and so your K should be clearly explained preferably. As for literature that I am particularly familiar with I mostly ran Nietzsche, Buddhism, Disablism, Anthro, Cap/Racial Cap, Set Col, and Orientalism. However, I am heavily biased against nazi literature please don't run it like Schmitt or Heidegger because ya know... I had family subjected to the Holocaust... K-Affs are fun I def ran them a lot but I probably err slightly towards FWT maybe 55/45 should the best arguments be made although (the best args are rarely/almost never made) so I actually end up voting at about 50/50 or edging slightly in favor of K-AFFs.

II Framework:

A. ROB/ROJ: I think that both are really just thesis claims for your framework and in themselves not necessarily arguments. i.e. a role of the justification for existence absent framework arguments and no function as to what it means and should you make an argument about framework regardless of whether you say the role Role of the ballot/Judge is ___ the function of how I evaluate the round stays the same so in the end whether you say an explicit role of the ballot text or not the end result is the same, therefore it follows that a ROB/J cannot be more than a thesis claim because it doesn't change the outcome of the round by default absent some sort of internal justification but then that begs what it means via the framework arguments rendering the whole thing circular leading back to the same place that it is in fact a thesis claim.

B. Framing: Your framework should preferably offer some explanation on how impacts should be evaluated in relation to other impacts and what should type of evaluation comes first, what methods ought be prioritized etc.

C. I default to epistemic modesty over confidence on frameouts and impact defense. That means without any in-depth explanation, I'll evaluate your frameout as a reason why your impacts are more probable than your opponents, and why your opponents have a lower probability of solving their impacts. If you want me to evaluate your frameout as terminal defense, or a reason the k is sequentially a prior question to the aff, you need to do the technical extensions of why that is necessarily the case. I also default to epistemic modesty when it comes to impact defense that means absent an explicit argument as to why that defense is terminal I will only evaluate it as mitigatory. When it comes to epistemic skew claims I functionally default to confidence as I believe they create new layers within the debate. Finally, stating that X is terminal defense if the claim is uncontested will cause me with regards to that particular impact to view that as terminal defense regardless of whether it is coherent as the implication will not have been contested however, if something is not explicitly stated to be terminal defense and there is not an explicit claim saying it is such or flipping my paradigm then I will view any defense as mitigatory as described.

C. MISC.

1. Will vote on Skep triggers if they are terminalized and explained and I think tricks belong in parli but IG that's up for debate tho.

2. I default to theory is Apriori however, I will vote on K before T if the argument is made/won. Or they are on the same level if arg is made/won.

3. I have no idea what "vote for the best/better debater" means.

4. Not as experienced with Phil tho I do enjoy it and have def learned a lot from former Phil debaters and understand a decent amount of it.

5. Role of the ballots/Judges are really just thesis claims for framework arguments imo from what I have seen though i.g. if you want it to be more binding then that you need to probably make that argument although I will probably all things being equal be more receptive to the claim that its a thesis claim.

III. Impacts:

a. Have them and terminalize them. As stated above don't just say nuclear war or poverty and expect me to do the work for you.

b. full disclosure I probably find the proximal impacts bad for debate highly persuasive. Not to say that I won't vote for proximal impacts if they're won on the flow (I def ran them occasionally when I did debate) and that you've won that they're good but due to personal experiences and the ways I have seen them utilized I have a bias against them. I also think there's a distinction between proximal impacts that occurred in the debate round i.e. someone did something violent in which case I think those proximal impacts are probably persuasive versus proximal impacts brought into the round that your advocacy or alt solves for you or other debaters in-round which is where I find my bias against proximal impacts probably comes in.

IV Alt/Advocacy:

a. Preferably have one and tell me which way I should vote unless its part of your FW, solvency, performance, or something I guess that you don't need one.

b. If it has a really complex idea and philosophy explain what the terms mean either under your alt/advocacy or in your solvency ideally.

V Solvency:

a. You should have it and clearly explain how it solves the impacts you have provided at a minimum. Don't just say we solve you should state the mechanism and way in which you solve.

VI: Perm: Refer to 2, B), II. the perm section under counter plans.

5. Evidence Debate specific:

A) Carded evidence: it is very important for Evidence debate but you must also make arguments not just cite sources. Analytics theoretically can beat cited cards if you do the better debating. Also please don’t get into your source is bad arguments unless they cite the most biased source like Breitbart (obviously evidence comparison is encouraged though) I more so mean the "wahhhh no u, debates) for the evidence chain please send to Joshua.alpert (AT) berkeley.edu

B) Power-tagging/cutting: don't... Please Don’t... I’m very probably pretty receptive to some sort of theory shell against it if it is won... please don’t lose it if you do run it or I will be sad. A drop the argument claim made by the team calling it out at the very least probably has a good chance of winning in front of me.

C) No clipping!!! this shouldn't have to be said but apparently, it does.

6. If you have any further questions feel free to ask me before or after the round or if you have questions about a round I judged feel free to email me or send me a Facebook message.

7. My Uniqueness rant.... feels like half the time I am judging HS rounds with two linear impacts pitted against each other and like some rough uniqueness so I am gonna put a RQ rant on how uniqueness works so I don't have to keep repeating myself

a. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link: I.e. if the uniqueness is headed in one direction things bad the link should be things get better or vice versa on a DA. This means that thumpers/uniqueness overwhelms the links arguments aren't particularly responsive more so mitigatory as there is still only a risk things get worse as such in order to really control the link debate its ideal you control the uniqueness debate as well. (side note: generally case turns also need uniqueness too otherwise they're pretty linear which makes it easier for the opposing team to handwave away with "try or die".

b. Uniqueness positive v negative v flux: Uniqueness in terms of directionality follows one of three types Positive v. negative v flux Positive uniqueness indicates the squo is headed in the right direction (squo good) this is the uniqueness you generally want on a DA, negative would indicate the squo is bad and is what you want on an advantage, and in flux would indicate that it could head either direction it is dependent on a "singular action" it can go in either an AD or DA and generally, requires strong control of the Link/Internal Link debate while strategic in some instances it is generally high-risk high reward.

c. Predictive v Descriptive Uniqueness: Uniqueness can either be predictive or descriptive what I mean is uniqueness can either state what is happening "right now" or in the "past" (descriptive) or it can be predictive describing what is expected to happen in the future look to an econ debate descriptive uniqueness would state that unemployment is at an all-time high with X unemployment and the investor confidence is low at ___ versus predictive would be unemployment is expected to drop ____ because of ___ and investor confidence is headed towards a free fall as X bubble bursts.

d. Uniqueness as a spot for internal links: uniqueness can be used as a spot to place internal links instead of having separate internal links sections you can embed that X type of thing is the internal link i.e. you can have a section that says soft power is the internal link to Heg or investor confidence key to Heg to save you some time from having to flesh out a whole separate internal link section.

e. Brink Scenarios: Please for the love of god have brink and/or flashpoint scenarios in your uniqueness i.e. some event or location that is heading in the wrong/right direction think if you have a war with Russia scenario isolate someplace like the Baltics, arctic, cyberspace, etc. rather than some vague place and isolate why now is key and what is going to happen if we don't do this otherwise it kind of makes your uniqueness linear and a nightmare to evaluate and of course to leverage tbh.

F: Non-Case debate

I K's: The alternative generates uniqueness in a K debate: i.e. all the framing, links, and impacts are generally nonunique until you have created a way to solve them via your advocacy/alt.

II: Theory: Your interp/counterinterp is what generates your uniqueness in a case debate in a similar fashion to how the alt does as you have established an "advocacy/rule" for an interpretation of how debate should functions in order to resolve impacts isolated in the same way that if the alt on a K has terminal defense to resolving its offense making it nonunique and thus not a reason to vote against the AFF it means that should an interp have terminal defense on it it is not a reason to vote down the opposing team as its offense can't be resolved, it also means that absent a counterinterp you don't meet or a we meet/interp flaw that even if you have offense of why the interp is bad you have no way to resolve that offense so the interp is automatically preferable (unless you've impact turned/framed it out ofc).

e. Example/outline:
Advantage Heg:
uniqueness:
1. heg is low right now because ___ (this should be related to the type of power on uniqueness 2 and the location on 3 otherwise you will thump your own offense)
2. __ type of Power is key to Heg
3. ___ Flashpoint is Key to ___ type of power and something bad is happening there rn

she/her

Experience: I've been involved in debate for 10 years. Four years of National Circuit and Local Circuit High School LD at Chatfield Senior; four years of College NPDA/NPTE Open Parli for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley; three years of coaching experience for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley and Campolindo High School.

TL;DR: The short version is that I strive to evaluate the round as technically and objectively as possible. Read whatever arguments you want (provided they are not rhetorically violent), win them on the flow, and don't be oppressive/violent. Ks and k affs are great, theory is great, CPs are great, disads are great, case affs are great. Never worry about me auto-rejecting an argument because it's 'blippy' or 'frivolous', just make sure it's sufficiently weighed.

______________________________________________________________

Long version: The following details apply to both parli and LD, and if there's a paradigmatic difference between the two events, I will make note of it.

Philosophy: The principle that guides my judge philosophy is that judge intervention, while inevitable to some degree, is generally bad and should be minimized whenever possible. Paradigms that welcome judge intervention open the door for judges to make decisions (sometimes subconsciously; sometimes explicitly) on arbitrary criteria like presentation and rhetorical appeal. Evaluation of these criteria frequently comes down to race and gender, as well as being unfair and uneducational to the debaters in the round, so it should be avoided as much as possible. I do believe there can be instances of judges intervening in rounds for good, but on whole, as a general model for how debate ought to operate, I think judge intervention does more harm than good.

Three immediate implications of this:

[1] I default to strength of link to determine the truth value of arguments, warrants, empirics, etc. That means I don't care how "blippy" an argument seems, only whether it is contested; if an argument is conceded, then it has 100% strength of link and therefore is true. I will not intervene on the truth value of arguments, warrants, and empirics, for the reasons explained above (intervening on whether arguments are "true" sets a bad precedent about what the role of the judge is in debate rounds), and because I don't trust myself to know enough about the world to be able to verify the minutia of your arguments.

[2] I generally use paradigms that prioritize 'tech' over 'truth.' To this day, I am still confused about what 'truth' means as the opposite of 'tech.' How does the judge evaluate a round "truthfully"? Does that just mean the judge intervenes on the truth value of arguments (see point 1)? How does the competitive nature of debate factor in to 'truth' paradigms? If there are some arguments that are not open to debate ('true' arguments), wouldn't the more 'true' side have a massive advantage over the other? As a result, I think tech debate paradigms are more fair and educational, so I default to them.

[3] I use speaker points to reward good strategic calls and execution, rather than performance or rhetorical appeal. I don't like evaluating elements of debaters' in-round performances, such as persuasion, affect, rhetoric, speaking style, etc (again for the reasons above). However, if you are rhetorically violent in round, your speaks will be far lower.

All of the other details of my paradigm stem from these three points.

General:

- I have no preferences about the following: rejecting the resolution, conditionality/multicondo, 'cheater' CPs, PICs, Ks, 'frivolous' theory, etc. I am more than happy to evaluate these strats, but I think your opponents get to at least try to read theory in response.

- Personally, in order of most to least enjoyed, I prefer Ks, then theory, then case/advantages/disadvantages debates. However, my preferences will never factor into my decision, and I am more than comfortable evaluating any of these types of arguments.

Delivery/Speaks:

- I'm very comfortable with speed, but I know it can be a barrier to teams as well. I will default to evaluating speed but if your opponent asks your to slow or clear, please listen to them. I also don't think tech debate is intrinsically tied to speed; it's possible to have a technical debate that is not fast if speed is a barrier to teams. This means a) tech is not a reason why speed is good, and b) speed is not a reason why tech is bad or inaccessible.

- Don't worry about "performing well" in front of me. As previously mentioned, I will not give speaks based on performance.

- I will say clear as much as I need and I won't penalize speaks for clarity.

- I will not lower your speaks for calling points of order/information, so call away!

Policy/Case stuff:

- I default to believing in durable fiat.

- I default to evaluating your advantages through net benefits and util/some other form of consequentialism unless you specify otherwise.

- Specificity is good! I would much rather vote on your super specific investment bubble disad than your generic government spending disad.

Counterplans:

- I like CPs, especially well-constructed/creative advantage CPs.

- From the general section: I have no disposition for or against condo of 'cheater' CPs. Feel free to read them, but assume your opponents get to try reading theory about them.

- I default to evaluating perms as tests of competitions, but I will evaluate them as advocacies if you give me a reason why.

- I prefer arguments about functional competition and competition through net benefits to arguments about textual competition.

- I default to no judge kick, but I will evaluate it if you make the arguments.

Theory:

- I love theory :)

- I default to potential abuse over proven abuse, but feel free to do weighing between the two in round.

- I have a relatively low threshold for what counts as abuse on theory. Since I default to potential abuse, I vote for the better norm for debate between the interp and the counter interp. This means I am very comfortable voting on 'frivolous' theory and potential abuse.

- I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I think it's hard to evaluate reasonability without a brightline for what is considered to be 'reasonable.' I also don't know how to decide what is reasonable without being interventionist (see the judge intervention section).

- I default to dropping the team on theory, but I have no disposition between dropping the team or the argument.

- I default to theory being a priori to the rest of the debate.

- I default to fairness and education not being voters. This means you have to explicitly read fairness and education as voters in order for me to vote on theory; I will not "assume" they are there.

- I have an extremely high threshold for 2AR/PMR theory.

- I have an extremely high threshold for reasons why case impacts (advantages or disadvantages) should come before theory.

- I default to no RVIs. That means you have to make the argument that theory is a reverse voting issue, I won't just assume that it is. However, I love RVIs and think they're underutilized right now in parli.

Kritiks:

- I love Ks and K affs. I see myself as primarily a K debater, judge, and coach.

- I have a good understanding of most foundational critical theory, so don't be afraid of reading your arguments in front of me. Read your pomo nonsense; read your more structuralist positions.

- As a debater, I tended to reject the resolution more than I defend it, but I am perfectly happy evaluating rounds either way. From above: I think you're probably able to reject the resolution, but your opponents probably get to try reading theory against it. For what it's worth, all else held equal, I think I probably err towards the kritik on the question of weighing k impacts vs fairness and education (55-45), but I think the reason why is because teams frequently fail to explain why concepts like 'fairness' and 'education' matter in the context of the framework/impacts of the K, thus losing if the aff frames out the interp. If you can read framework and with this debate, you will probably win my ballot.

- I default to epistemic modesty over confidence. This means without any in-depth explanation, I'll evaluate your frameout as a reason why your impacts are more probable than your opponents, and why your opponents have a lower probability of solving their impacts. If you want me to evaluate your frameout as terminal defense, or a reason the k is sequentially a prior question to the aff, you need to do the technical extensions of why that is necessarily the case.

- I evaluate the alt like a CP in reference to competition and the perm; if I should evaluate the alt as more of a performance instead, please let me know and explain what this means in the context of the round.

- I don't love reject alts. I'd prefer your alt to be specific, concrete, and actionable.

- I default to theory being a priori to the K, but I'm extremely sympathetic to arguments that the K should come first for a litany of reasons.

Other:

-Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- I default to presumption flowing neg unless the neg reads (and goes for) an advocacy other than the status quo, but I want this to be debated out in the round.

- I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as "contradictory" arguments; or at least, I think conditionality probably resolves a large degree of contradictions. So, I'm sympathetic to the argument that contradictions don't matter if you kick out of one half of the contradiction. However, if you're uncondo, you do need to be careful not to double turn yourself (for example, by reading an uncondo cap K and an econ DA).

- I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it's always better to call points of order just to be safe. There's always a chance I misevaluate whether an argument is new or not, so play it safe and point it out to me. I won't lower speaks or anything for calling points of order, so there's no perceptual risk.

- I will vote on IVIs, but to be transparent I'm not the biggest fan if they're read frivolously. Specificity is necessary here. If you do go for an IVI, you need to do the technical work of explaining why this piece of offense functions independently of the rest of the flow. Absent some justification, I will evaluate IVIs as a piece of offense on the layer it was read. If you want me to evaluate it as an a priori voting issue, I need framing that justifies this. This isn't to say that I won't evaluate IVIs, but it means that you need to do the work of explaining why it's a priori.

- (Parli) The LOR doesn't have to extend every word of the MO. I think the LOR can largely do whatever it wants to, as long as it's not new. The LOR can never really lose the round, but it definitely can win it.

- (LD) Please include me in the speech doc or email chain if there is one.

- If you have other questions I haven't answered, please ask me before the round!

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

He/him/his

My email is jrogers31395@gmail.com if you have questions, or if I'm judging Policy/LD/PF

On general argumentation:

I have a fairly nihilistic approach to impact calculus, but assume that death is bad.

Analyzed evidence > evidence > reasoning > claims.

On delivery:

Talk as fast as needed. "Slow" means slow down; "clear" means enunciate more.

If you exclude others, they can argue that you should lose for it.

I reserve the right to drop you if you're an asshole.

On Theory:

I default to reasonability, and would much rather judge either substantive policy or critical debate -- don't choose not to run theory if you actually feel like the other team is being abusive. I understand the strategic utility/necessity of theory, and have run/voted for a few garbagey theory shells before.

The aff should probably be topical, but if you don't want to be, just justify why that should be allowed.

On Kritiks:

I enjoy good Kritik vs policy or K vs K debate -- I personally have the greatest degree of familiarity with Marxist anti-capitalist stuff, and I've got a decent working knowledge of most of the popular kritikal lit bases I've seen recently.

If you can't clearly connect the theory/structure you critique to material harm and present an alternative that can solve it, I don't know why I should vote for you.

For carded debate:

Please slow and emphasize the author, date, and tag - it makes extensions much cleaner if I actually know what cards you're talking about

I only call for cards if the other team says you're lying/powertagging, or if one card becomes the fulcrum for most/all terminal offense in the round.

Background:

My name is Jessica Jung. I won NPDA in 2018-2019 with my partner, Lila Lavender as a hybrid team (the first all transwomen national champion team yay!!) I also did NPDA Parli for four years in college for UC Berkeley where I competed on and off. I was mostly a kritikal debater personally but I dabbled in case and theory every so often. I generally believe that debate is a game and should be treated like one. This means that I am content agnostic (for the most part and with a few exceptions such as instances of violence in the round) and that I see debate from a more technical standpoint. Technical debate was what I learned at Cal and is what I am most familiar with and thus, that tends to affect my judging. That being said, one of my goals in debate when I competed was to turn debate into a spectacle (whether that was good or not has yet to be seen) but as such, I am very open to new arguments, new types of debate and pushing the envelope for what NPDA parli is or could be. That being said, anything that is new takes some getting used to so don't be surprised if I find these cool new novel arguments difficult to evaluate.

A few personal requests:

1. Please read trigger warnings or content warnings before discussing any topics related to sexual violence. Please do so before the round and not at the top of the PMC so that if I or anyone else in the room needs to take a second, or abstain from the debate, there is a moment to exercise some amount of personal privilege.

2. Do not misgender your opponents, intentional or otherwise. I would generally recommend defaulting to "they" if you do not know someone's pronouns and to use "my opponents" in the round as I find using people's first names in the round to be kind of uncomfortable.

3. I would prefer you do not give me a "shout out" or refer to my personal history during your speech or during debates. Not sure exactly how to phrase it but I find it uncomfortable for debaters to refer to me via first name or reference my debate history in the round. Before or after is fine, we can make small talk etc but please just don't be weird about it during the round.

4. Please debate however makes you the most comfortable, I have zero preferences whether you sit or stand, what you wear etc as long as you're respectful of your opponents and your partner.

TL;DR fine with theory, K’s, case, explain your arguments with warrants and explicit implications, will default to tech evaluation on the flow, don’t be bad to your opponents

Evaluative Framework:

- I'm comfortable with case, theory, K's etc. I'm fairly content agnostic in this regard.

- I'm fairly comfortable with speed but if I call clear or slow, please heed these requests, otherwise I will just miss things on the flow because I can't write fast enough.

- I evaluate the debate based on the flow, which generally means I will vote in whatever way minimizes my intervention in the round. I think that some amount of judge intervention is inevitable but I will still aim to make decisions with the least amount of intervention possible.

- I stole this from Trevor Greenan but we got a similar debate education so this should be totally justifiable: I vote in this order:
1. conceded arguments
2. arguments with warrants and substantive analysis
3. arguments with in-round weighing/framing
4. arguments with implicit clash/framing
5. arguments I am more familiar with

- In round articulation of arguments is very important. Even if conceded arguments have certain potential implications for the round, unless those implications are made explicit or within the original reading of the argument, I am unwilling to grant you those implications as that feels interventionist. This generally means you should be more explicit than not. This applies to: concessions, extensions, impacts, weighing etc.

- I generally don't like voting on blippy arguments or underdeveloped arguments especially if these arguments are just claims with no warrants or impacts. I have a high threshold for these types of arguments and am also willing to grant late responses if the original argument or its explanation was unclear or massively underdeveloped.

- I do not grant shadow extensions, or at the very least, treat them as new arguments. This means that arguments not extended by the MG cannot be leveraged in the PMR, arguments not extended by the MO cannot be leveraged in the LOR etc. While grouped/blanket extensions are fine, for example if an entire advantage/DA is dropped or extending a section of the flow like all the impacts, but for the most part if you want anything specific from these extensions you should do them in the MG/MO. This also includes new cross applications from extended arguments onto other sheets/layers of the debate as these cross-apps should have been done by the MG/MO.

- I protect against new arguments but you should call Point of Orders just in case as I am not perfect and can/may miss things.

- I have a high threshold for voting on presumption and presumption is a portion of debate I may not be the most comfortable on. I'm still willing to evaluate the layer, just don't assume that I'm following your presumption collapse 100%.

- I don't mind conditionality. That being said, my preference is towards less wide, more tall/deep debates but whatever floats your boat.

Argument Specifics:

Theory:

- have a stable and clear interp text
- read theory arguments with explicit voters
- if not explicitly articulated, I will default to drop the argument
- I default to competing interpretations
- read brightlines for reasonability
- generally friv T is fine by me but I'll be honest and say I don't find friv theory debates to be all that interesting
- I might have a lower threshold for voting on RVI's than other judges on the circuit but I am still generally unwilling to pull the trigger on them unless they're substantively developed, even if its conceded (see the point about implications/explanations above)
- if standards are not articulated in substantively different ways or are not given different implications (like terminalizing out to fairness or education) then I am unwilling to auto-vote on a conceded standard if the other similar standards have answers to them or if the other team has some amount of mitigation.

Ks:

- sequencing arguments such as prior questions or root cause claims need to be warranted and substantively explained as well as interacted with the other portions of the debate
- clear links please, not links of omission, try and make them specific to the 1ac
- I evaluate links via strength of link. comparative work on the links done by the debaters would make me really happy! be sure to weigh relinks and links against each other
- rejecting the resolution in front of me is fine as long as you defend and justify your choice
- I believe that I can follow along with most K arguments you read in front of me but don't assume I'm intimately familiar with the literature
- do not assume that because I did mostly kritikal debate in college that I am exclusively a K hack, if anything I am likely to expect a lot from K debates and may have higher evaluative thresholds for K's because that's what I am most familiar with. that being said, I love kritiks so feel free to run them in front of me.
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the alt are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- I'll evaluate/vote on severance permutations if there is substantive explanation and if there's no argument why severance is bad/unfair.

Case/CPs

- not sure if there's really such a thing as terminal defense but am still willing to buy these arguments
- prefer less generic case arguments than not (who doesn't really) but am still fine with your generic advantages and DAs.
- more specific and warranted the better
- CPs need to stable texts
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the CP are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- PICs/cheater CP's are fine with me but so is PICs bad and CP theory

I'm a game debater and what that means for you is I'll judge any argument, any speed, run whatever, go nuts. I'll judge a round with spread debate, I'll also listen to a speed procedural.

I like structured debate. Be careful of the line between aggressive debate and being rude to your opponents because at the least it will lose you speaker points fast. When it comes to the win I'll be tab so go for whatever position you want. When it comes to speaker points I look for structure, good line by line, and people not being jerks. I'm not looking for you to be overly formal and courteous, I'm just not gonna award high speaks to people that are condescending.

General stuff: (please read)

TLDR: I am a coach for Campo, and I debated for cal parli last year. I debated all 4 years in high school, doing lay PF for the first 2 years, then transitioning to national circuit PF and attended gold TOC in my senior year. I will vote on the flow. you have to have warrants in your arguments. I will reward you for giving me reasons to prefer certain arguments or impacts, and for articulating clear arguments, but I will still vote on dropped/conceded arguments first because it's the path of least resistance (smallest amount of judge intervention). If you have a specific question, either before or after the round, email me @ olive.ray.mccauley@berkeley.edu I'll do my best to answer.

1) I will vote on the easiest out. pls collapse and tell me what the easiest out is so that i don't have to do a lot of work and accidentally intervene.

2) It's my responsibility as a judge to make sure that I do my absolute my best to make a good decision, because, "You all put a lot of effort into this activity, and it's my onus to adjudicate every round thoroughly. If you feel like I'm failing to do this in any way, pls call me out." (bilal askari) That being said, I'm not perfect. I don't always get everything on my flow, so if something is particularly important, try to signal it's important by just saying "this is critical for xyz" or something along those lines.

3) Put warrants (reasons things happen) in your stuff. just do it. if I don't know how you get from point A to point B, I'm probably not going to vote on point B, even if you say it a lot and tell me it's really important. Do NOT ask me rhetorical questions, they are not reasons/warrants and I can't answer them without intervening with my personal opinion.

4) a lot of speed is fine.

5) Please extend things that you want to win on throughout the round, even if it's not super fleshed out, at least mention it. I'm definitely okay with things getting expanded in the back end of the round, For example, if you have arguments about climate change, and argue that climate change will cause extinction but you add an extra warrant or replace one in your last speech, and it's not a response to a new argument in the MO, I will not evaluate that new stuff. You might still win on the argument, but you won't win on the new stuff, so your time is probably better spent on saying things that *aren't new.*

6) points of order: I protect the flow, but I might not get everything. Points of Order are good, but should not be called for: weighing/comparative analysis, slight rephrasings, or contextualizations in terms of other arguments. Things you should call points of order for: new warrants, new examples, or a completely new cross-application to a conceded argument (unless it's weighing. I do not consider weighing new in the last speech of the round, its what I want you to do.).

7) speaks: they are super arbitrary, change a lot from judge to judge and are riddled with sexism, racism, xenophobia and a whole host of other things, so I default to 28s if you do a decent job literally saying words in round. Extra points are awarded based on how well you executed/utilized warrants in round strategically. If you do things that are offensive (ex: racist, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic) or are just generally mean/rude, I'll give you a 26, probably drop you, and talk to your coach. Don't be toxic.

9) Signpost. I flow on paper, so please let me know (ex: 'go to the "a" point on uniqueness') where your argument goes, otherwise, I might not evaluate it as a response to something you need to answer, because I just don't know where it goes.

Advantage/Disad:

I am most familiar with topical case debate. I think the uniqueness, link, impact structure is good for clarity, which is good for everyone in round. Don't try to be so tricky that your opponents can't understand you, because if it's that unclear, your judge (me!) probably won't either.

Your uniqueness decides the direction of links (aff: things are bad now, affirming makes them better, neg: things are good now, affirming makes them worse), so please make sure that your uniqueness corresponds with your links. I'm down for wacky arguments, just make sure you explain it to me and your opponents.

Counterplans are good, just make sure you prove they're competitive.

other than that, have good warrants! explain to me how the resolution and plan (your plan can be either the resolution or something more specific, both are fine) lead change the status quo, and why that's good or bad. You need offense at the end of the round, and you also need to weigh impacts *against* the other impacts in the round (not just: "this outweighs"). If both teams are weighing, but going for different mechanisms, I need clear reasons to prefer one weighing mechanism over the other. Please spend time on this, because if it comes down to scope vs. magnitude I don't really know what you want me to do.

Terminalize your impacts! if there isn't a clear reason why to prefer a clear weighing mechanism, I probably will vote on whichever impacts I think are better terminalized (ex: if "global warming" outweighs on scope, but disease outweighs on magnitude because it kills people, and "global warming" isn't terminalized, I'll probably vote for disease because you show me how it affects people, while the other team doesn't).

At the end of the round, I'll vote on the easiest out: conceded arguments that are extended with warrants and weighed impacts, or whichever side does a better job of answering their opponent's responses and then extending their arguments.

Theory:

theory is fun. I know friv theory is popular, but i think it's a waste of time, and I have a lot of homework to do so i will probably be annoyed if you spend a lot of time on something like shoes theory. That being said, if you win it I will vote for you, I will just also be annoyed.

I evaluate theory first because the impacts are pre-fiat.

Please read your interpretation twice, so that I can get it on my flow.

please justify why i should evaluate theory based off competing interpretations vs. reasonability

Kritiks:

I like Kritiks, but don't assume that I can/will fill in warrants for you. My understanding of critical literature is relatively limited (I've read some Marx, Bentham, Benjamin, Adorno, Baudrillard, etc.), so just make sure that you're explaining things well, and that you have warrants for the claims that you make on any level of the K. Other stuff:

I am okay with K affs if that's your jam, but I'm not as good at evaluating them as I am at evaluating Kritikal negs.

If your K is complicated, it's probably good for everyone in the round if you read a brief thesis that summarizes your argument so I know (and your opponents know) what's going to happen in-round.

Links of omission are links if and only if you tell me specifically how omission reifies or strengthens the system you seek to critique. (ex: "misidentifying the root cause" is only a link if you tell me how misidentification does xyz to strengthen the system by masking how it causes harm or something like that)

perms are a test of competition. If you have stuff built into your K about why the other team can't perm, please provide warrants (ex: "no perms in a methods debate" is not a warrant -- you have to explain why there are no perms in a methods debate)

have structure in your K, so: thesis, framework, links/harms, impacts, alternative/advocacy, and solvency.

abt me:

Background:

I did Classic debate in Minnesota during my freshman year of high school, which is genuinely the most lay form of debate ever. I then transitioned to Public Forum for my remaining 3 years of high school debate, but I was only really good for the last two years. I did National Circuit PF, qualified and competed at 2018 nationals (went 7-5, didn't break, nothing special) and went to ToC in 2019, last year (again, didn't break, nothing to see here lol). I debated for cal parli last year, and i am a coach at CHS.

Good luck, and happy debating!

TL;DR

Debate is a game. Run whatever you want, just win it on the flow. Hit me with your new K, some frivolous theory that you’re worried other judges won’t buy, or literally anything else. Speaks based on execution of strategy.

Background

I'm a recent grad of UC Berkeley who debated in NPDA (tech parli), and now I coach the college team Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley, as well as the high school team at Campolindo HS. My partner Ryan Rashid and I won all three nats in NPDA my junior year, but I have next to no experience outside of parli (just some high school PF and lay LD), so I'm relatively unfamiliar with LD and policy norms. I did and teach pretty much all the stylistic things—equal amount of case, theory, and Ks. I love writing K links, collapsing to tix/elections DAs, and prepping clever T shells courtesy of shoddy resolutions. (The last one is kind of a joke, but also not really.) Point is, I have no preference for what you read, please just do what you're best at. I'd rather see a good K debate with quality clash than a bad case debate, and vice versa.

General note: My philosophy on debate has been primarily shaped by Trevor Greenan, Brian Yang, Ryan Rashid, June Dense, Will White, and Lila Lavender.

Kritiks

- If you're in a hurry you can skip this section—read whatever K you want lol, I don't pick favorites

- My background in academics and debate leans slightly more toward sociology than pomo. I've taken courses (and written Ks) about critical refugee studies, settler colonialism, anthropocentrism, etc., but have yet to truly grasp more than the barest bones of Bataille, for example. That being said, I definitely have experience with pomo—I've read/collapsed to Buddhism, Barad, Foucault, Nietzsche, etc. and competed against Lacan more times than I can count (shout out to the Rice team for that one). So feel free to read pomo if that's your thing, just be a tad gentler with me and don't assume I've read/heard allll the terminology before

- I'm a hoe for really well-warranted links that are specific to the aff and have imbedded DAs/solvency deficits. Also detailed and specific reasons why you solve the aff (if that's an arg you like to go for), either in the impacts or on the alt

- Theses can be helpful for more complex Ks, but def not necessary for your generic cap shell. I often write Ks that draw from multiple lit bases, and for me, a thesis creates a more cohesive story for something that can be kind of frankenstein in nature

Theory

- I love theory. I've been told I have a low threshold for frivolous theory (probably a consequence of too many rounds with Ryan and Brian), but my favorite is topicality, or any other interps that are very specific to the resolution/Aff. If it's clear that your interp had to be written during the 2 minutes before the LOC, that's my jam. Ofc you can read generics too, I'll just be slightly more bored and slightly less impressed

- MO and PMR theory will be an uphill battle with me, the latter most of all because it can't be contested by the other team, which makes my job so very hard, and I am lazy. But if the abuse is truly egregious and didn't occur until the MG/block, or if it's a matter of rhetorical violence, read the new arg and I'll do my best to evaluate it. But please weigh the new shell against the other team's remaining offense

- MG theory is fine, I read it all the time, but I'm also comfortable rejecting it if the Neg wins arguments for why it's bad or in-evaluable

- I don't need proven abuse under competing interps (it's about what your interp justifies, not what you actually did)

- Text vs. spirit of the interp should be debated in-round, and I'll evaluate under whichever is won. If somehow it's relevant but completely unmentioned by either team, I'll default to text over spirit

- I default to competing interpretations, but I'll use reasonability if you win args as to why I should AND if you have a briteline for it, cuz I don't feel like intervening. For example, a briteline (that I think works relatively well) is that I should evaluate whether the aff interp is good or bad based on all the offense-defense arguments read about it, and decide theory based on that, regardless of whether there's a counter-interp text. You could have a different briteline, but either way, explicitly tell me what it is, because "evaluate theory using reasonability" means different things to different people. I would prefer not to treat it as just a gut check, but if you don't define it, that's what I'll assume you mean

- I think theory is an RVI if and only if you tell me that it is, provide warrants, and then win that arg

- I default to drop the arg, although drop the arg sometimes = drop the debater, like for T. But obviously, reading "drop the debater" with even just one uncontested warrant is sufficient for me to change this default

- I didn't do circuit LD, so explain slightly more to me the definitions/implications of buzzwords that aren't as common in parli. The best example I can think of is semantics vs. pragmatics: I NOW know what they both mean, but I did NOT a year ago, and that made it difficult for me to render a decision in favor of blippy semantics first args in NPDI finals. Still read arguments like that if you want, just define and implicate them out, don't assume that I know all the things

Case

- I enjoy niche disads, like a hyper-specific tix scenario, or a biod disad about endangered turtles that live near where the plan happens. These can be hard (or impossible) to find though, depending on the res, so don't sweat

- I also definitely understand the value of tried and tested generics - I read a lot of backlash DAs and consult CPs, and inv con, so it's okay to read that too. Read whatever you think is strategic for the rez

- I enjoy technical CP debate. PICs are fun unless I'm read a shell that tells me otherwise. Same thing for consult CPs, delay CPs, agent CPs, etc.

- Perms on CPs. Make them. Any perm is fine, unless the other team gives me a reason why it's not

- In the absence of explicit magnitude/probability/timeframe/etc. weighing, I default to using only strength of link. In other words, I’m more inclined to vote for arguments that are dropped or comparatively under-covered, but you can prevent this by telling me why your impact is high [magnitude/probability/etc.], and why [magnitude/probability/etc.] comes first

- I love clever case strats that exploit a mistake the other team has made, like collapsing to a straight turn or a double turn. Don't be afraid to do something "risky" like that, I can follow along

Everything Else

Here's some miscellaneous beliefs that I have about debate and will utilize by default; however, I'm willing to evaluate otherwise, even in the opposite direction, as long as you give me sufficient reason to in-round:

- I think unconditionality means you *technically* have to defend the advocacy throughout the round, but that could include conceding defense so the sheet doesn't matter anymore

- I believe that perms are a test of competition, not an advocacy

- I'm not game for shadow extensions that aren't at least mentioned in the MG/MO, even if the argument is conceded. In other words, I think the member speeches should have to extend every piece of offense their team intends to collapse to

- I will do my best to protect during the LOR and PMR, but I don't trust myself to catch everything and neither should you, so call points of order please. I'll rule on all of them immediately, to the best of my ability, because you usually need to know my stance for the sake of the rest of the speech

- New weighing is fine in the LOR/PMR, but make sure it's actually weighing, not sequencing or anything else. E.g., saying "fairness is more important than education because debate could survive without education, but not without fairness" is acceptable weighing, but saying "fairness is more important than education because it's the internal link to education and skews the round" is a sequencing argument that should be read before the rebuttal speech

- I think condo's p dope, so run however many off you want, but also I'll drop you if the other team wins a condo bad shell

- I think dispo is condo in a suit, but if you can get a we meet out of it, go off sis. And if you think they might use their dispo status to meet your condo shell, preempt that in the violation please

- Presumption flips neg, unless the neg reads a CP/alt, in which case it flips aff

- I find “truth over tech” arguments incoherent and self-refuting; “truth” in debate is only ever arrived at through evaluation of the flow (or judge intervention, which I will not do), so in order to convince me that truth outweighs tech, you’d have to win that claim via the tech flow…which seems to indicate that tech still > truth

- I will drop your ass for racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. rhetoric or behavior

- Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. [Added March 29th, 2023.] Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- To pick you up on an IVI, I need reasons why that IVI outweighs all the impacts your opponents are going for

Experience:

I competed in Parliamentary Debate for a couple of years in high school and now am a third-year member for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley. I love debate for its creativity, diversity of arguments, and critical thinking.

Quick Notes:

- I will flow your round. Unless otherwise convinced, I will vote for the team that has the most potent and persuasive offense on the flow

- Please, please, please collapse on the negative to one position. I have made mistakes before on the flow in messy rounds when the negative does not collapse and it makes me sad. I do not actively seek out judge intervention, but it might happen when the flow gets too messy.

- Also, please explain the implications of you buzz words/taglines. Recently, I have found myself voting against technical debate (much to my chagrin) because I do not think buzz words have been adequately contextualized to the round. It is much like fleshing out an impact. I want to see the entire reasoning behind the argument (e.g. it is not sufficient to say "perm" without a perm text or it is not sufficient to say "frames them out" without specific interactive analysis).

- It is the burden of the affirmation to do something besides the status quo (make offense); if neither team has offense by end of round I will most likely begrudgingly vote negative

- Default Roll of Ballot (ROB): Vote for the team with the best post-fiat policy option

- Default Roll of Judge (ROJ): Vote for the team that best functions under the ROB

- Default hierarchy of arguments: theory > kritik > case (but again, this is all determined by how the debate round is framed and is thus highly variable)

- Default framing of impacts: magnitude > probability > timeframe (yet again, this is all determined by how the debate round is framed and is thus highly variable). I also will default to proximal impacts first. Also, if I perceive rhetorical violence in round against me or a participant, not only will I dock speaks but I will also (probably) vote you down.

- My default treatment of permutations are as tests of competition and not advocacies

- My default framework of theory is competing interpretations. I will also default to potential abuse before proven abuse.

- I protect against new arguments in the final two speeches

- If I say "clear" it is because I cannot understand you. If I say "slow" it is because I cannot flow as fast as you are talking. Feel free not to change your behavior, but be wary that I may miss some of your arguments (and I might consider arguments later as shadow extensions to my flow and disregard them)

On the meat of debate:

Plan: Please have an explicit text and solvency; the more clear, the better. Reading plan text twice is a smart strategy if one decides to spread.

Advantage/Disadvantage: The more fleshed out the better. If it is separated into uniqueness, links, and impacts, it makes my job much easier. Be sure uniqueness is flowing in the right direction for your links, the links are sturdy, and the impacts are terminated (well-developed).

Theory: When running theory, be organized (interpretation, violation, standards, and voters or some equally viable system). I am okay with voters being cross-applied. Be careful with the wordings of your interpretations. Responses to theory should be organized ("we meets," counter interpretations, counter standards, and standard defense or some equally viable system).

Kritiks: Kritiks are the heart and joy of debate. That said, if you read an affirmative kritik, be sure you have a clear out against theory arguments. On negative kritiks, make sure that you have a clear framework, links, impact, and alternative or equally viable structure. If some parts are missing, it will be difficult to win the kritik. (Though, I may be a bit of a hack on critical arguments, I will still try to limit the backfilling I do).

Counterplan (CP): Make sure the CP is well fleshed out and explicit on why the affirmative cannot permutate (textual competition is a weak argument and not very convincing; try to look for functional competition or net benefits to the CP).

Speaker Points: They will probably be between 26-30

PARLI

3x National Champion in 2021 (NPTE, NPDA, and NRR)

- I don't care about persuasion, I give better speaks for technical strategy and execution.

- I would rather you debate what you're most comfortable with, rather than over-adapting and reading something you aren't as familiar with

- I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

Other Events

Background

I did high school LD for 3 years, and now I compete in NPDA at Berkeley. TL;DR, do whatever you want and I'll vote for whoever wins on the flow.

General Issues

- I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the worse argument if it’s won on the flow (i.e. tech > truth).

- I think condo is good, so I'm perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies. That being said, I'm also more than happy to vote on condo bad if you win it.

- I don't believe in shadow extensions.

Theory

- I like theory

- I default to competing interps, drop the debater on T (drop the arg on most other theory), and no RVIs

- Weigh between your standards for me (i.e. why does limits outweigh ground)

Advantage/DA/CP

- I don't keep up with the news at all, so I'm very uninformed on current events. That being said, I don't think that really matters for LARP debates

- Have good warrant comparison and impact calc

- Overviews are greatly appreciated, especially if the round is messy

- No preference on CPs; I'll evaluate PICs, consult, alt actor, etc., but I'll also evaluate theory against them

Kritiks

- I'm familiar with more structural/material Ks, as opposed to pomo. If you're unsure about whether I'll know something, just assume I don't and explain well (overviews, please)

- I like seeing good links that are actually specific to the aff and have imbedded offense

- I have a high threshold for reject alts and links of omission

- K-affs are fine, but if you don't answer fairness skews eval properly, I probably won't vote for you

Phil

- I've been out of the activity for a while, and phil debates are non-existent in parli, so I'm definitely not up-to-date on any of the norms. But if it's your thing, I'll definitely try my hardest to properly evaluate it -- same with tricks

- Weigh between violations of the standard

I don't really judge anymore. If you are a debater and want to see my paradigm for some reason, email me firstname dot lastname at gmail.