Overview: 

I vote on the flow and rarely intervene.

Background:

I have experience as a debater and a debate educator. I am debate with the UC Berkeley APDA team. I have taught Parli at the Stanford National Forensic Institute and I currently coach the Berkeley High School team. 

Basics:

I pretty much will always vote on the flow and generally just want to see a good, clean round. I care about organization. I think it is very important to warrant and impact arguments. I also think it is important for you to pay attention to the judging criteria/standard, it isn't there to look pretty. 

I try to as tablua rosa as possible. That said, if you are being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc there's a pretty good chance I will not vote for you. That also means that if your opponents say something racist/sexist/homophobic/etc and you call them out and remind me that the role of the ballot is to punish those things there is a very strong chance I'd side with you. 

Theory:

I don't love it but I will vote on it. I'm certainly no theory expert but I won't be confused if you say you have a T Shell or a K, etc. If you are running slimy theory I am less likely to be sympathetic to you, I care about debate and think there is a place for theory but that place is not when you just don't know what the topic is about. 

Speaking Preferences:

I can probably handle your speed but if I tell you to slow down and you don't it will be your fault if I miss your arguments. Also, do not spread out your opponents. It is unlikely that that would be reflected in my decision but it will be in speaker points. 

POI/POO/RVI:

Ask POIs but, as with all things, don't be an asshole. I will flow new arguments in the rebuttals until you call them out so do Point of Order. I am sympathetic to the RVI if it is done well.

I competed in LD for Brophy College Prep (AZ) for four years on both the local and national circuit and graduated in 2015. I now coach parli at Prospect High School and am on the parli team at Santa Clara.

Abridged version
I will view the round in terms of an offense/defense paradigm unless persuaded to do otherwise. Obviously, you need offense to win, but I think good defense can do a lot to mitigate mediocre or shoddy offense. Speed is fine as long as you’re not using it to exclude your opponent. I am open to almost any type of argument (although not all arguments are created equal). Please just provide some type of weighing mechanism. I won’t automatically vote on something that’s dropped if you can’t explain why it matters. I will try my best to be objective and not intervene, but I admit I am not a debate judging robot, and like all judges, I have opinions and biases. 

Debate is a game, but it also has great educational value, and I really dislike when debaters try to obfuscate the round/trick their opponents/avoid actual clash because I feel that this undermines the potential for interesting, intelligent discussion. I like it when debaters are courteous, logical and reasonable.

Also, please don’t shake my hand.

Here’s some more on my specific preferences/biases.

Extensions: Extensions should have a claim, warrant and impact. Please signpost clearly so I don’t miss your argument.

Theory/T: Both are fine, for strategy and for checking abuse. I’ll be sympathetic to reasonable responses against blatantly frivolous theory. I’d prefer theory be in shell form, but paragraph theory is okay as long as it’s clear. I default to reasonability and drop the argument, but can easily be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks: Are fine. However, I’ll hold you to a higher standard of proof on the link story if your K seems canned. It’s one thing to write a K before the tournament and use your prep time coming up with specific links to the topic, and it’s another to just run the same generic cap bad links every round. If your links are generic, I’ll be more accepting of generic responses to them.

Points of Order: Not a huge fan. If there’s an argument that’s actually new, fine, but I flow quite well and it’s highly unlikely that I will not notice a new argument, in which case I’ll disregard it anyway and your opponents will be wasting their time. More often than not points of order just sound like whining.

Presumption: I will vote on any offense I can or anything remotely resembling offense. If the round is actually irresolvable I will flip a coin.

Presentation: I’m kind of old school. This doesn’t mean I want you to act like you’re giving an oratory or thank everyone profusely at the beginning of every speech. I’m fine with speed but still project, be clear, and at least make occasional eye contact because debate is still about convincing actual people to vote for you. I won’t vote on presentation but it may affect your speaks, or at least my subconscious impression of you. FDR stood when he spoke.

Things I will not vote on: NFL/NSDA rules, arguments that are blatantly racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, claustrophobic, arachnophobic, and/or objectively repugnant (e.g. impact turns to genocide, “Nickelback good”), opening quotes

Things that will hurt your speaks (and make me sad, and possibly make me look for ways to drop you)

1. Using speed to exclude your opponent
2. Being rude in CX (or at any point)
3. Calling your opponent’s arguments “stupid,” “dumb,” “terrible” etc.
4. Using a lot of complicated jargon that your opponent clearly doesn’t understand and refusing to clarify your arguments to them
5. Saying things that are blatantly racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.
6. Using tricks to beat an inexperienced debater
7. Arguing with me after the round

Other random things I like that may help your speaks

1. Coming up with clever responses to surprising or confusing positions on your feet
2. An overview at the start of the PMR/LOR that clearly tells me how to evaluate the round
3. Good weighing
4. Effective, well-timed uses of humor and/or puns
5. Explaining complex philosophy in a way anyone could understand
6. Running Kant properly
7. Asking strategic POIs

Good luck, have fun. Please ask before the round if you have any more specific questions. And please don’t shake my hand.

I'm a parent judge with four years of experience. I keep track of flow and will buy dropped arguments. Neg, make sure you explain why the aff plan causes more harm than good, not just why it won't work. If your main argument is solvency I will probably vote aff if they make it clear there is a problem in the status quo. CPs are great just make sure they are mutually exclusive. I will always vote lives over econ, so if your main argument is econ make sure you terminalize impacts.

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 275 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

Evergreen Valley '16

Berkeley '20

NPDI/TOC Update: I wrote this paradigm for circuit LD, but the general concept stands. In high school, I competed in parli sporadically, and qualified to TOC. In college, I competed & coached in several different formats, including APDA, BP, and Worlds Schools.

General

I will vote for whatever you present a compelling argument for. I default to an offense/defense paradigm, and ethical confidence on the framework level. I presume that all levels of the debate, e.g. theory, kritiks, contentions, etc. are equally important unless you argue otherwise. I flow cross-ex answers. To quote Christian Tarsney, my favorite debates are (1) philosophical debates focused on normative framework, (2) empirical debates with lots of weighing and evidence comparison, (3) just plain stock debates, (4) "critical" debates revolving around incoherent non-arguments from obscurantist pseudo-philosophers, and (5) theory debates, in that order.

Contentions

Weigh everything. I have a high threshold for extensions (i.e. you must re-explain the claim, impact, and warrant). You must explain why you win an argument and why it's a voting issue even if your opponent drops it.

Theory

Theory must include all the elements of a structured shell. You don't have to say "A is the..., B is the..." but you must mention an interpretation, violation, standard, and voter sometime in order for me to vote on the argument. I default to dropping the argument and competing interpretations on the theory debate.

Kritiks

Be creative! I will act as if I have no knowledge of the authors or literature you reference outside of what you have told me.

Other

I enjoy technical debate, I also understand that not everyone does. If your opponents are in the latter category, please don't use speed, jargon, or obscurity to try to get an advantage.

Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. You can contact me at v.a.sinnarkar@berkeley.edu.

I was a debater from 9th grade until my fifth year of college, debating for Towson University from 2002-2007. to date, I have had over 16 years in both speech and debate and that had dramatically shifted my thoughts on the activity.I have been judging high school debate since 2002, but I will warn my speedreaders that just because I say that at the beginning of a round, that does not in any way insinuate that I want you to pretend to race the words off the paper. My ears are finely tuned to listen, but I don’t think that it is a clever tactic to read so that your opponents have no clue what you are saying. This is debate, I expect to hear a debate. I am well versed on the topic for the year, and look forward to getting more in-depth with some of the more detailed arguments surrounding the topic. Here are a few things that guide my judging thoughts:

• I like clash, not just tons of arguments. With that being said, in terms of speed, fast is ok as long as clarity or volume are not neglected.
• Quality over Quantity Always! The number of issues you raise are not as nearly as important as how you argue the issues. I never saw the point in running 6 or 7 offcase, even when being strategic, I feel most times, it’s overkill.
• Cheap shots, time sucks or just plainly abusive arguments are not voters.
• Kritiks are acceptable when run correctly. Decide, understand and be able to advocate why your framework change is a reason to get the ballot. I will not assume any links or impacts unless they are debated.
• T, like any other argument, needs clearly articulated reasons why it’s a vote. Education is a big deal to me, so in the past has easily become a voter.
• PICs justify perms. So both sides need to be able to prove why their solvency mechanism prevails.
• The link should be an important part of the offensive strategy.
• I recently relocated from the East Coast to California, I am excited to see the new styles and personalities of debaters. With that being said, remember that being rude or offensive in any way during a round will immediately put up a caution sign for me. If you are not able to articulate an idea without controlling these, it lends me to believe that you don't have faith in your arguments or your ability to be strategic about them.
• Good Speaker Points come from a combination of delivery, presentation of arguments, personality and engagement.
• At the end of the day, I go to the flow and how arguments have been analyzed to decide the ballot. I am looking for the clearest and most articulated story from beginning to end. This is why I enjoy judging.
• Last, but not least, I come from the era of expandos and tubs, and am still getting used to the idea of paperless debate for practical reasons, so when judging, I do not expect there to be any change in expectations due to paperless debate, I would still prefer debaters stand and face me when debating, be able to share evidence (if allowed) and good use of evidence.

If you have any questions or need to me to go in-depth on any particular topic, please feel free to email me at tsmith@svudl.org.