August 2020

Here is my paradigm from 2017, with only slight modifications. Everything I said below applies, with the caveat that I haven’t really debated or even judged in the intervening three years, and am therefore likely to be rusty.

November 2017

Nutshell: I debated circuit parli for 4 years in high school, with (very) brief forays of LD. Open to hearing any argument as long as it’s impacted clearly and you tell me how to evaluate it. I mostly went for case debate and theory, but I’ve read the K and I’m very open to hearing it as a judge.

LD-SPECIFIC: Everything below applies, especially RE topicality, the K, etc.

Speed — I should be able to handle most things, but a really fast LD spread might outpace my flowing — if it does, I won’t hesitate to call clear.

Framework — Coming from parli, I’m most familiar with util-based frameworks but I have passing familiarity with most things and I’m happy to evaluate meta-ethical debates. That said, all frameworks (but especially non-consequentalist ones) need to clearly explain how I should evaluate the debate.

Theory — If the interp doesn’t have labeled, distinct standards when initially read, I give the other side a lot of latitude to make later responses. That said, if the standards are labeled and not terribly developed, a drop is still a drop.

Policy-style debating — I’ll probably have a hard time penalizing someone for running a plan, but I’m certainly happy to evaluate the argument.

GENERAL:

SPEED:

Shouldn’t be an issue in parli — I can flow as fast as anyone is going to be talking. If this is policy, go maybe 80% and you should be OK — I’ll call slow or clear as necessary.

I’ll never stop trying to flow, but if I have to call clear too many times it probably means I’m not getting very much.

DISADS / CASE:

Yes please. Highly specific and warranted arguments will get you high speaks. Generics make me less happy, but I like to see them debated well and I’m happy to vote on them. Either way, a clean collapse and clear strategy are your friend.

Please do weighing. A couple specific notes here:

• The best kind of weighing is an explanation for why you are ahead on the substantive questions of the debate and your specific impacts need to be prioritized. The worst kind of weighing is “always prefer x,” where x is magnitude, probability, or timeframe. That doesn’t mean that magnitude, probability, and timeframe shouldn’t enter into your analysis, but you should be contextualizing what you say to the arguments made in the round, rather than claiming that one particular criterion always wins out.

• Impacts aren’t inherently improbable. If you want me to vote against (e.g.) a nuclear war impact for being improbable, it should be because you have link defense against it, however generic.

• Weighing (in the above sense of explaining argument interactions) is allowed in the last speech. However, new argumentation still isn’t. If you are going for a higher magnitude impact on the aff, you can’t get up in the PMR and make the uncontested claim that the judge should always prefer magnitude. If you want to make such an argument I’ll evaluate it, but I won’t adopt it uncritically unless it’s made in an earlier speech and conceded.

• If forced to, I’ll default to magnitude as a tiebreaker. However, this is only if I see no other way to evaluate the debate, and you shouldn’t expect this to happen. More likely, if no one tells me what to think, I’ll form my own opinion about what the most important impacts in the round are, and then vote on those. Thus, if your impact is higher magnitude but you conceded terminal link defense, I’ll still vote against you in the absence of explicit weighing from either side.

TOPICALITY / THEORY:

When well-executed, topicality especially is a personal favorite argument for me. If you’re going for T, collapse to it in the block and don’t go for anything else. Impact out your standards. Internal link turn the other side’s standards. Be as clear as you can about interps — to the extent that I can, I’m evaluating what you said and not what you meant, so say what you mean.

Default to competing interpretations — I’m happy to vote on reasonability, but you definitely need a bright line and should tell me how your version of reasonability functions.

I have no particular objection to "frivolous theory" as long as it meets the standard set out in the debate (competing interps, reasonability, etc.).

COUNTERPLANS:

Run them. I especially enjoy thoughtful uniqueness and advantage CPs, but I’m down to hear anything. Make sure to clearly articulate your competition and net benefits, and keep your text stable.

I tend to think one conditional advocacy is reasonable and maybe even good, but I’m highly open to hearing theory otherwise, or for you to read five and justify it. However, I'll never sever arguments, so any claims you make on the CP debate can be used against you even if you kick the counterplan.

Specific counterplans: delay, conditions, etc. are probably cheating, and consult might be. Open to hearing arguments on PICs, alternative actor etc. These are all defaults so feel free to do whatever you can justify.

THE K:

Happy to hear it, although it wasn’t my personal focus. By default, I’ll tend to think about the K debate as a comparison of methods against that of the aff. If you want me to do something else, I will — just make sure to justify it.

Don’t try to confuse your opponents out of the round. That’s bad debating. Especially if your K is confusing, take a bunch of questions and explain what the other side asks you to.

Make sure your alternative solvency gets well explained, and that it resolves your links. This is probably how you’ll lose if I vote aff.

If your framework arguments deny the aff access to the debate I won’t be happy, but I will evaluate them. On the aff, please answer those arguments and leverage your offense within both frameworks.

I may or may not have heard of your author, but either way your threshold for explaining the argument should be the same.

K AFFS:

If they’re your thing, go ahead. I tend to feel like the aff should affirm the topic at least in some form, which means I’m probably more open to framework than some. But debate it out.

I don’t feel comfortable voting on disclosure theory unless you can show me proof there wasn’t any after the round — as in, a text message refusing to disclose. If there’s proof, I don’t have an issue.

TRICKS:

Skep, presumption, and arguments of a "similar flavor" (this includes variants of "vote neg because the resolution is nonsensical): I don't have any particular issue with this strategy, but I'm likely to evaluate it in a fairly all-or-nothing way; for instance, if you want me to vote neg because the resolution is meaningless, I will be reasonably willing to evaluate aff responses as takeouts.

GENERAL:

Don’t be offensive or horrible — impact turning racism, insulting your opponents, etc.

You should really give the other side a text when they ask, and take at least one question per speech. But it’s not a reason you’ll lose unless someone reads (and wins) theory.

For parli: I’ll protect against blatantly new arguments in the rebuttal, but if it’s borderline I’ll let it through absent a challenge from the other side. You should call a point of order on anything you think is new.

Background

Lay & flow (circuit) parli debater for Notre Dame & Los Altos (2013-17). Coached at POI 2017, currently coaching for Sequoia High and private students & helping out with NPDL office hours.

General/tl;dr

I will vote for anything that is not downright morally repugnant as long as you explain it well; whoever has the clearest path to the ballot and explains that will likely win. Make my decision easy and explain where I should be voting. Run whatever you want, but do it well - know your own strengths and debate based on that! I will default to comparing all arguments on both sides against each other - ie K vs case, theory vs K, etc - unless you explain why one type of argument comes first.

Speed

I will call clear if I have to, but speed isn’t a problem. Keep taglines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow. That being said, your speaker points will suffer if you are clearly excluding your opponents from the round by spreading!

If you're being spread out: make it very clear that you can't keep up by calling slow and clear as much as you need to; that being said, speed theory is very rarely run well, you're probably better off spending your time making responses if you have even a chance of doing so or else go all in on speed theory if you have literally nothing.

Kritiks

I’m down as long as they actually have a link, you understand them/can actually explain them, and you take steps to ensure the other team has a chance to engage. You better have a solid alt and alt solvency that explains how you resolve the links if you expect to be winning on the K. K affs can get rather sketch in parli - disclosing that you're not defending fiat is probably a good idea but I don't really have any way to verify it unless you show me a message or something refusing to disclose. Again, I'm not going to intervene against any of these choices - it just means you'll have to win any theory arguments concerning the legitimacy of what you've done. I'm fine with performance Ks, but if you're running an identity based K for an identity that you are not, I will certainly be very receptive to arguments against that. I'll take your arguments at your word, but be ready to explain how you give the neg ground.

Basically, you're welcome to run Ks, but actually do it well - confusing your opponent is a bad way to win the round! Also, I am very much against reading messed up or abusive arguments just to skew your opponents out of the round - while I won't intervene against you unless absolutely necessary, your speaker points and my opinion of you as people and as debaters will greatly suffer.

While I didn't run many Ks myself, I'm decently familiar with cap, fem, antiblackness, anthro, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Orientalism, Heidegger, security, colonialism [and probably some other stuff I've forgotten] but this does not mean you should explain less.

I'm not a huge fan of framework arguments that entirely exclude the other side, but I will evaluate them if run. If they're read against you - please answer them and leverage offense under both frameworks so I don't have to vote on them!

DAs/CPs

Love them, make them strategic. Make sure to explain how the CP functions. Defend against the perm; I view perms as test of competition not an advocacy. Good case debate is better than bad K or theory debate, so don’t be cheaty just because you have a backfile. A specific, well-warranted DA will beat a generic any day, but if you have to go generic, at least explain it well and how it relates.

One conditional advocacy is chill, more is potentially kinda sketch but I'll listen to arguments attacking having any or justifying having tons, you just have to win it. Delay, conditions, consult etc CPs are probably cheating, PICs/agent ones are usually fine and uniqueness/advantage CPs are great. But again - all up for debate, if you can justify it go for it. Keep your texts stable.

Case

Good case debate is great! You should always have a clear plan text specifying what you're actually doing - small affs are solid within reason (as long as you have very clear net benefits you should be fine). Make it very clear in your advantages what your links are. Don't be extratopical.

Theory

I default to competing interps and no RVIs, but I don’t default to theory comes first unless you tell me to. You need to explain why theory comes before the K if there is one (and vice versa). I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but if it is there, point it out or articulate why potential abuse is enough in this instance. If you are going for theory, you better actually go for it. I probably won’t vote on it if it is only 30 seconds in the rebuttal. Receptive to arguments on PICs/condo on both sides; whoever wins the standards debate will probably win that.

Be very clear in labeling interp, standards, etc - I will vote on what you said, not what you meant. If you're going for theory - impact out the standards, internal link turn the other side's standards, etc.

If you're going for reasonability - give me a brightline (in addition to explaining why I should prefer it obviously).

Policy is objectively the best way to debate most rounds, but if you really want to run trichot I'll evaluate it. I dislike most spec shells so if you're reading it, it better either be very relevant or very good.

Weighing

If you're not using some sort of standard util/net benefits framework, explain how I should be evaluating the round. I default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise. Weighing is your job, not mine, so do it. If your opponents drop a point, don't just say they dropped it and thus we win moving on, you still need to impact it out.

Speaking of, terminalize your impacts (death, dehumanization etc). Economic growth is not an impact; nuclear war and extinction scenarios have their place but they better actually be relevant - think of all the marginalization or proxy war impacts you're missing out on by just reading the same extinction scenarios every time! Spend your time on the important areas of clash - ie if the debate comes down to who controls the uniqueness, focus on that, if it's more about whose impacts should be weighed higher, do that, if it's a question of who links harder to the same impacts, focus on the links!

Evidence

The actual warrant is more important to me than the citation, make sure to explain the argument but also provide evidence if necessary. A good analytic is probably better than a bad stat. Please don't spend all your time arguing over whose source is more credible, if you have clashing evidence use logic and analysis to explain why yours should be preferred!

Miscellaneous/Speaking

I don’t shake hands.

Shadow extensions are awful, I will happily accept a point of order on them. Once you've point of ordered a team 2-3 times, I've definitely gotten the picture and you can stop (aka I do not automatically protect against new arguments in the rebuttals unless they are blatantly 100% new, but I will after a couple point of orders). If I'm protecting against a super new argument, I'll stop flowing but if you're unsure feel free to call it.

Questions: please ask and answer them! Be respectful, don't interrupt the speaker unless they've let you stand there for 30+ seconds without any acknowledgement. Once they've said "at the end" or "I don't have any more time" a couple times, be a decent person and wait till the end unless absolutely vital, it's just annoying. As for taking questions: you should always take a question about framework/plan text, and another is nice if you have time. Don't take tons of questions though, this is your speech, be assertive and use your time for yourself!

Calling "status" and "text" (for plans/CPs, K alts, ROTBs, or interps) is 100% legit, please do it (no need to wait to be acknowledged). Always ask status!!

Don't steal prep between speeches or spend excessive time thanking everyone (once, briefly, is plenty).

Tagteaming is all good, but don’t be that kid who tag teams the whole time - no puppeting. Your speaks will suffer.

Speaks are based on strategy more than anything else, but good presentation is also a plus.

I will also use speaks to punish clearly offensive or incredibly abusive behavior/arguments in round - be a decent human being and this shouldn't be an issue!

**Feel free to FB message me with any questions

Last Updated

11/10/2021

Background

Former coach at Washington HS and New Roads School. Circuit Parli debater at Prospect (2013-17). Former BP debater at USC.

General Ballot

I will vote for mostly anything as long as you explain it well. Please give content warnings pre-roadmap so that strat changes can be made accordingly. Deliberately misgendering a competitor in the round will result in an auto-loss and a not so pleasant conversation with me and a member of tournament staff. As a judge, I’ll vote for the single team that has the clearest path to the ballot. While warranted extensions can be helpful in terms of voting, I very much dislike when teams rely on "extend ___ uniqueness/argument". Chances are, there aren't as many "conceded" arguments as you think there are - don't be lazy on the line-by-line. My default on dropped arguments is that they are true and I will evaluate them as such. If you have questions on presumption, message me. I want it to be easy to vote, so do that for me. Debate is a game (unfortunately?) and as such, everyone is reading arguments in order to either increase and/or secure their chances of a W. Therefore, I find it hard to be convinced that any particular argument ought be banned or norm ought be forgone (e.g., banning the use of back files, shaming speed, disallowing Ks). That DOES NOT mean that I believe that we should abandon common human decency and practices of kindness.

Speed

I will call clear if I have to, but speed generally isn’t a problem. That being said, if your opponents are not able to compete with your speed, I expect that you will adjust accordingly. Please do not read Speed Theory if you are not going to give your opponents the opportunity to slow down (by calling 'slow' or 'clear') in previous speeches. I find it difficult to identify a bright line between conversational, fast and very fast speaking and unless you tell me where the bright line is, therefore it is incredibly difficult for me to evaluate Speed Theory. Keep tag-lines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow.

Kritiks

I’m down for them as long as they have a link and they aren't being read purely to deny your opponents equitable access to the debate space. Parli generally has larger K frameworks than policy, so I’m down with that default. Please avoid making generalizations about society. In the same vein, I'm inclined to vote against root cause claims without warrants. I think the aff has the ability to leverage the 1AC/plan as offense versus the alt. I find that the debates that are most engaging/convincing, are ones where kritikal teams engage with case and where case teams engage with the criticism.

K affs are all good in policy, but are sketch in parli unless they have a policy alt. If you feel so inclined to read a kritikal affirmative, I expect that you will disclose within 10 minutes of prep. I never read performance Ks, but am down to listen to them. I’ll flow as well as I can, but be ready to explain how you give the neg ground. Very low threshold on offense against truth testing framework. The lit-bases that I am reasonably well-read on include cap, whiteness, neolib, fem and setcol.

Framework debates are my jam.

I am a firm believer that good case/theory debates are more valuable than bad K debates so don't be cheaty just because you have a backfile.

DAs/CP

Make sure to explain how the CP functions in the 1NC. I am not a stickler on CPs being ME so have fun with that. If you choose to read a perm (in most cases, you should), I'd prefer you read a perm text and an explanation for how the permutation has solvency/functions. "Perm, do both" is not a perm text. I am very unlikely to vote on a Delay CP because I have yet to hear a good justification for why delay resolves the harms in squo better than the plan and doesn't bite the DA(s).

Theory

Default to competing interps and no RVIs, and theory coming first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but if it is there, point it out and your speaks will go up. If you are going for theory, you better actually go for it. I probably won’t vote on it if it is 30 seconds in the 2NR/AR. That being said, I really don't expect you to go for every theory arg you read. High threshold for PICs bad and Condo bad. I will not vote for Ks Bad if it is used as an out from actually engaging with critical positions. I also find that generalizing that all Ks are bad does very little to improve the quality of the debate space. If you choose to read a generalized Ks Bar argument, I will need warranting for why the argument you are attempting to mitigate is specifically exclusionary to your team in the round.

Tricks

I'm going to be completely honest and say that tricks go completely over my head. That's not to say they are bad arguments or ineffective but rather that they are often inadequately explained and I fail to find a way to evaluate how they interact with other args on the flow. Riley Shahar is a much better judge for such args.

Weighing

Generally default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise. Weighing is your job, not mine. I need clear impact scenarios to vote for an argument.

Speaker Points -- I will vote on 30 speaks theory

25 - Please take a moment to rethink what you are about to say (P.S stop being racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc)

...

28~28.4 - Some strategic errors but they weren't devastating

28.5~28.9 - Meh, average

29~29.3 - Definitely know what you're doing

29.4~29.9 - Your round vision and strategy was on point

30 - WOOO I SPY A WINNER

General School-Wide Conflicts

New Roads, Prospect, Washington

Miscellaneous

Off-time road maps PLEASE.

Tag-teaming is all good, but don’t be 'that kid' who tag teams the whole time. I'll be rather disgruntled and take it out on your speaks.

Speaks are more based on strategy than anything else. I think that speaker points are pretty bogus considering that style preferences are quite subjective.

Shadow extensions are awful.

I will more than likely be okay with my RFD being recorded for learning purposes. It's generally a more efficient alternative to repeating portions that you didn't manage to write down on your flow. Please ask before you record, I don't want being "on record" to deter other debaters from asking questions.

**Feel free to email with any questions - keskar@usc.edu

or FB message me

1. The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, and long COVID destroys lives. I will be wearing a mask, and I beg you to do the same if you are in a room where I am judging—both to protect all of us from the continuing pandemic, and because I am particularly at risk due to my own health conditions. I will try to have high-quality masks available to share; if you don't have a mask, I will assume that you were unable to access one, and will not ask further questions beyond a quick request. However, I will have trouble believing critical debate arguments that come from people who are not masked, because it seems to represent a lack of interest in pursuing true community care and justice. I don't know how that fits into a meaningful line-by-line evaluation, but I know that I will be unable to stop myself from being distracted from the round. If that causes issues for you, of course, don't pref me highly!
2. You should be aware that I am still recovering from a series of concussions that mean my ability to follow rapid arguments may be limited. I will tell you if I need you to slow or speak more clearly. Fine with all types of argumentation still, it's just a speed issue. That means I may also need extra time moving between arguments/papers.
3. For a dictionary of terms used in my paradigm (or otherwise common in parli), click here. I recently edited this paradigm to better reflect my current thoughts on debate (mainly the essay on pedagogy, but some other minor alterations throughout), so you may want to look through if you haven't in a while.
4. Take care, all. Tough times.

TL;DR: Call the Point of Order, use weighing and framing throughout, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I won't shake your hands, but sending you lots of good luck and vibes for good rounds through the ether!

Background and Trivia

I did high school parli, then NPDA, APDA, BP, and NFA-LD in college; I've coached parli at Mountain View-Los Altos since 2016. My opinions on debate have perhaps been most shaped by partners—James Gooler-Rogers, Steven Herman, various Stanford folks—as well as my former students and/or fellow coaches at MVLA—particularly William Zeng, Shirley Cheng, Riley Shahar, Alden O'Rafferty, and Luke DiMartino. More recent people who *may* evaluate similarly to me include Henry Shi, Keira Chatwin, Rhea Jain,Renée Diop, and Maya Yung.

I've squirreled (was the 1 of a 2-1 decision) twice—once was in 2016 with two parent judges who either voted on style or didn't explain their decisions (it's been a while! I can't quite remember); the other was at NorCal Champs 2021, I believe because I tend to be fairly strict about granting credence to claims only if they are sufficiently warranted logically, and my brightline for evaluation differed from the brightlines of the other judges for determining that. There was one more time at a recent tournament, but I have forgotten it, sorry!

Most Important

• An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication; blips without meaning won't win you the round. Please, if you do nothing else, justify your arguments: every claim should have a warrant, and every claim should have an impact. The questions I've ended up asking myself (and the debaters) in nearly every round I've judged over the past ~7 years are: Why do I care about that? What is the implication of that? How do these arguments interact? Save us all some heartache and answer those questions yourself during prep time and before your rebuttal speeches.

• In other words—If there is no justification for a claim, the claim does not exist, or at best is downgraded to barely there. I think the most clear distinction between my way of evaluating arguments/avoiding intervention and some other judges' style of doing so is that I default to assuming nothing is true, and require justification to believe anything, whereas some judges default to assuming that every claim is true unless it is disproven.

• Debate should be respectful, educational, and kind. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that. Be good to each other.

• Fine with kritiks, theory, and any counterplans, and fine to arguments against them as well. I don't think arguments automatically must be prioritized over other arguments (via layers), i.e. you need to explain and warrant why theory should be evaluated prior to a kritik for it to do so. If I have to make these decisions myself, in the absence of arguments, you may not like what I come up with! Generally, I think that I probably have to understand something like an epistemological claim (pre-fiat arguments) before I can evaluate a policy debate, but that might not always be the case depending on specific arguments made in round.

• I don't care if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should be evaluated before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget/don't know the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".

• Speaking during your partner's speech is fine, so long as the current speaker repeats anything said—I will only flow the current speaker. If you frequently interrupt your partner without being asked (puppeting), I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding.

• Content warnings are good (link).

• Call the Point of Order.

Pedagogy, or, why are we here? (UPDATED: 3/20/2024)

Debate can be a game, and a fun one at that, but it is not just a game to me—debate is a locus of interrogation, and a place where dominant ideologies can be held up and challenged. At its best, debate is a place where we can learn to speak, advocate, and grow as critical thinkers, participants in political processes, or members of movements organizing towards justice. Some debaters become policymakers, but every debater becomes a member of a society full of structural violence with the capacity to contribute to, or work against, the structures that enable harm.

With that in mind, a few notes (or, sorry, an essay) to consider the pedagogical nature of this space. Within the round, I will not tolerate —phobias, —isms, or misgendering/deadnaming in any debate space that I am a part of. If these things happen, I will dramatically reduce your speaks, and we will talk about it after round, or I will reach out to a coach. I will never vote on arguments that are implicitly harmful (e.g. eugenicist, racist, transphobic) and there is no amount of warranting that can convince me to do so. I am aware that some judges on this circuit intervene against technical arguments like criticism (kritiks) or theory because they believe that technical teams exclude non-technical teams from competition. I believe that technical arguments are a form of inclusion that allow people who have historically been marginalized in debate settings and beyond to engage in rounds in ways that non-technical debate prevents. This means that while I am happy to hear a "lay" round of policy discussion or a values- or principles-based debate, I will always deeply value technical debate education and critical arguments.

However, I know that technical debate can be intimidating: one of the only remaining videos of my debating is NPDI finals, 2014 (ten years ago, can you believe it?)—in which I argued shakily against a kritik at the fastest speed I could and almost fainted after. I learned what kritiks were just two days before that round. For the rest of my high school debate career, I learned about kritiks to beat them, because technical arguments intimidated me. Then, I went to a community college to compete in NPDA, and learned that kritiks are not something to be feared, but just another argument to engage with—one which can provide us with even greater education about the world that we live in and the ways that it harms people, than repeating the same tired arguments about minor reforms that can attempt to solve some minute portion of structural problems.

As someone who works in policy now, I think that the skills we learn from policy rounds are invaluable, but flawed. Uniqueness-link-impact structures are the way that policy analysis works in real life, too, as they correlate to harms, solvency, and implications. Analysis more common in APDA and BP, like incentives or actor analysis, is also pedagogically useful for policy. However, these structures are outdated: working in policy now, I know that one of the most important things we can learn to do is incorporate analysis of racial and other forms of equity into every step of our policy analysis, because the absence of this affirmative effort results in the same inequity and injustice that is embedded in every stage of our political and social systems.

I do not care if that analysis takes the form of structured criticism (kritik), framing arguments, or more unstructured principled argumentation, but I hope that anyone who happens to read this considers ways to incorporate analysis of racial, class, gender, ability, and other inequities into their rounds.

Finally—as a coach who views this activity as a pedagogical one, the most important thing to me is that debaters enter rounds willing to engage with arguments, and exit them having learned something about another perspective on an issue. I am still here to judge and coach, after all these years, because I enjoy being a part of the process of helping people learn how to effectively use their voices in meaningful ways by understanding what is persuasive and what is not.

So, please—be open-minded. If you fear kritiks because they confuse you, let that turn you to curiosity instead of hate. Recognize that kritiks are often a tool by which those of us who are marginalized by this community can, for a few moments, reclaim space, find belonging, and learn about ourselves and others. Ask yourself deeply why it is that you are unwilling to question the structures that govern debate and the world. Do you benefit from them? Do we all? Can't we all learn to think about them too?

Simultaneously, debate's educational value relies on inclusivity—if you run kritiks alongside theory and tricks at top speed on teams that are not comfortable with these things, what are you running the kritik for? How is that an effective form of education? Why do that, when you could simply run a kritik at an understandable speed? In other words—if you read kritiks exclusively to win, and intend to do so by confusing your opponents, I will be a very sad judge at the end of the round (and sad judges are more likely to see more paths to voting against you, of course).

As a whole, then, I am a strange hybrid product of my peculiar debate education. I believe that the best form of parli is somewhere between APDA Motions and national circuit NPDA. This means the rounds I value most are conversational-fast, full of logic without blipped/unsupported claims, use theory arguments when needed to check abuse, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without the structure of traditional criticism.

Case

• Rebuttals should primarily consist of weighing between arguments. This does not mean methodically evaluating each argument through probability, timeframe, AND magnitude, but telling a comprehensive story as to how your arguments win the round.

• Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run cases when they don't apply.

• (UPDATED 11/4/21) I tend to be cautious about the probability of scenarios. This means that I prefer to not intervene or insert my own assumptions about how your link chains connect—if they are not clear, or if they do not connect clearly, I may end up disregarding your arguments. I tend to have a higher threshold on this than most judges on this circuit, courtesy of my APDA/BP roots, so please do not leave gaps!

• Default weighing is silly on principle: I'm not likely to vote for a high-magnitude scenario that has zero chance of happening unless you have specific framing arguments on why I should do so, but if you make the arguments, I'll vote on them. Risk calculus is probability x magnitude mediated by timeframe, so just do good analysis.

• Presumption flows the direction of least change. This means that I presume neg if there is no CP, and aff if there is. I am certainly open to arguments about how presumption should go — it's your round — but I will only presume if I really, truly have to (and if the presumption claims are actually warranted). If you don't have warrants or don't sufficiently compare impacts, I'll spend 5 minutes looking for the winner and, failing that, vote on presumption.

• Fine with perms that add new things (intrinsic) or remove parts of your case (severance) if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.

• I love deep case debates. In NPDA I enjoyed reading single position cases, whether a kritik read alone or a disadvantage or advantage. These debates are some of the most educational, and will often result in high speaks. I am also a bif fan of critical framing on ads/disads.

• Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.

Theory (UPDATED 11/4/21)

• I default to competing interpretations—In theory rounds, I prefer to evaluate the argument by determining which side has the best interpretation of what debate should be, based on the offense and defense within the standards debate.

• I am open to the argument that I should be reasonable instead, but I believe that reasonability requires a clear brightline (e.g. must win every standard); otherwise, I will interpret reasonability to mean "what Sierra thinks is reasonable" and intervene wholeheartedly.

• I view we meets as something like terminal defense against an interpretation—I think that if I am evaluating based on proven abuse, and the interpretation is met by the opposing team, there is no harm done/no fairness and education lost and thus theory goes away. However, if I am evaluating based on potential abuse, I think that the we meet might not matter? (As you can see, I'm currently conflicted on how to evaluate this—if you want to make arguments that even if the interp is met theory is still a question of which team has the better interpretation for debate as a whole (e.g. based solely on potential abuse), I'm open to that too!

• Weighing and internal link analysis are the most important part of theory debates—I do not want to intervene to decide which standards I believe are more important than which counterstandards, etc. Please don't make me!

• Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased—and well-adapted to the round at hand. In other words, as someone who wrote a university thesis on literary analysis, interp flaws are a big deal to me.

• No need for articulated abuse—if your opponents skew you out of your prep time, do what you can to make up new arguments in round, and go hard for theory. Being able to throw out an entire case and figure out a new strategy in the 1NC? Brilliant. High speaks.

• (UPDATED 5/6/22) Frivolous theory is technically fine, because it's your round, but I won't be thrilled, you know? It gets boring. However—I am very open to theory arguments based on pointing out flaws in a plan text. Plan flaws, like interp flaws, are a big deal to me.

• The trend of constant uplayering seems tedious to me. I would much rather watch a standards debate between two interesting interpretations than a more meta shell without engagement. Your round, but just saying.

Kritiks + Tech

General:

• Kritiks are great when well-run. To keep them that way, please run arguments you personally understand or are seriously trying to understand, rather than shells that you borrowed frantically from elder teammates because you saw your judge is down for them.

• Originality: I most highly value/will give the highest speaks for original criticism—in other words, kritiks that combine theories in a reasonable way or produce new types of knowledge, particularly in ways that are not often represented in parli.

• Rejecting the res (UPDATED 10/9/2021): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the argument is these days. Generally safer to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright, unless the resolution itself is flawed, or you have solid indicts of framework prepared. However, if you're ready for it, go for it. Good K vs K debates are my favorite type of debate entirely.

• Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.

• On identity (UPDATED 10/15/2020): All criticism is tied in some way to identity, whether because we make arguments based on the understanding of the world that our subject position allows us, or because our arguments explicitly reference our experiences. I used to ask debaters to not make arguments based on their identities: this is a position that I now believe is impossible. What we should not do, though, is make assumptions about other people's identities—do not assume that someone responding to a K does not have their own ties to that criticism, and do not assume that someone running a K roots it, nor does not root it, in their identity. We are each of us the product of both visible and invisible experiences—please don't impose your assumptions on others. I will not police your choices; just be mindful of the fraught nature of the debate space.

Literature familiarity: In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me:

• Relatively high familiarity (have studied relatively intensively; familiar with a range of authors, articles, and books): queer theory, disability theory, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives, critical legal theory (e.g. "human rights"), decolonization and "post" colonial studies

• Medium familiarity (have read at least a few foundational books/articles): Afrofuturism, securitization, settler-colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, biopower, security, anti-neoliberalism, transfeminism, basics of psychoanalysis from Freud

• I will be sad and/or disappointed if you read this: most postmodern things that are hard to understand, Lacan, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, any theory rooted in racism, anything that is trans exclusionary.

• I'm still not sure what I think of including a list of authors I'm familiar with, but I think on balance that it is preferable to make this explicit rather than having it in my head and having some teams on the circuit be aware of my interests when other teams are unaware. Don't ever assume someone knows your specific theory or author. Familiarity does not mean I'll vote for it.

Tricksy things

• Conditionality: debates that have collapsed out of arguments you aren't going to win are good debates. If it hurts your ability to participate in the round, run theory.

• Speed: Don’t spread your opponents out of the round. Period. If your opponents ask you to clear or slow, please do so or risk substantial speaker point losses. I've actually found I have difficulty following fast rounds online; I think I'm reasonably comfortable at top high school speeds but maybe not top college speeds. Often the problem is coherency/clarity and people not slowing between arguments—if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.

• On philosophical tricks: I'll be honest: I don't understand many of the philosophical arguments/tricks that are likely to be at this tournament (dammit Jim, I was an English major not a philosophy major!) I will reiterate with this in mind, then, that I will not vote for your blips without warrants, and will not vote for arguments I don't understand. Convince me at the level of your novices.

Points of Order

• I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the Point of Order if it's on the edge. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the Point of Order to avoid intervening. After ~2 POOs, I'll just be extremely cautious for the rest of the speech.

Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)

25-26: Offensive, disrespecting partner/other debaters, etc.
26-27: Just not quite a sufficient speech— missing a lot of the necessary components.
27-28: Some missing fundamentals (eg poorly chosen/structured arguments, unclear logic chains).
28-28.5: Average— not very strategic, but has the basics down. Around top half of the field.
28.5-29: Decent warranting, sufficient impact calculus, perhaps lacking strategy. Deserve to break.
29-29.5: Clearly warranted arguments, weighable impacts, good strategy, deserve to break to late elims.
29.5-29.8: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
29.9-30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, top speaker, TOC, etc (have never given; have known every TOC top speaker for years; can't think of a round where I would ever give this to any of them)

I don't care if you talk pretty, stutter, or have long terrified pauses in your speech: I vote on the arguments.

This paradigm is long. I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge, or a given format. I encourage other judges, NPDA and APDA and BP alike, to do the same.

The debate is yours, do what you want with it. I will not intervene in the debate unless you force me to, and that extends to the rebuttals; it is your responsibility to flag new arguments via POOs. 

My one condition for the debate is that the AFF must defend the topic. If the AFF does not defend the topic, they will automatically drop my ballot. 

On a side note, the negative must read identify a link to to the AFF in order for me to evaluate their argument. Not reading a link will not automatically cause me to drop you, but I will completely buy a no link argument from the AFF. 

Hey I'm Ming. I'm a freshman debater for UC Santa Barbara and former debater for Campolindo High. If you care about my high school cred look me up here. On the college NPDA/NPTE circuit I've broken fairly far at all the tournaments I've attended and am fresh back from nationals to judge TOC, so clearly I'm sort of a debate junkie. Paradigm wise, TL;DR: I view debate as a game where debaters can read anything and I will evaluate arguments purely on the flow and try my best to minimize intervention. That means feel free to read your Kritikal Affs, multiple conditional advocacies, truth-testing positions, straight case, etc. as long as you win the justification. I understand prep is limited and you may not always have time to sift through a paradigm, so if you have any questions before the round, feel free to ask.

Speaker Points:

Unfortunately I am not a points fairy so if you're after that shiny, faux-gold speaker award I'm not the judge for you (Good Anakin, good. Strike him. Strike him now.). I generally give points between 26-29, where 27 is average and 29 is exceptional. I assign speaker points purely based off the technical debating ability demonstrated in round. Pathos is something that I value very little except in the context of performative arguments.

Theory:

Absent comparison this is broadly speaking the first level I look towards in evaluation. If the team defending against theory is lacking a counter interpretation and has lost the competing interpretations vs reasonability debate, then it is a near auto-lose for them. If a theory position lacks "drop the team" in the original shell I am inclined to buy "drop the debater" arguments as sufficient reason to not evaluate theory. On the question of potential vs articulated abuse, I am happy to vote on reasons why interpretations setting a potentially bad norm for debate is sufficient to pull the trigger. The implication for this is that "trivial" T does not necessarily have a higher threshold for evaluation and is an argument I am comfortable voting on if it's won. MG theory is also a perfectly fine strategy in front of me, although I'm very slightly more favorable to infinite regression arguments on metatheory debates. RVIs are fine as well, but I default to not evaluating a shell if it is won, not voting the team reading it down for losing it. I am also very open to uniqueness take out on debate collapse voters.

The Framework debate is my favorite and the kind of argumentation I am most comfortable evaluating. In my experience the most convincing framework standards are TVA, Switch-Side, and Truisms, but that doesn't mean simply uttering the words will win you the round. The most interesting points of clash in such debates are on the relevance of procedural fairness in the round and the role of the negative in debate. Another question to consider is whether only this round is relevant or whether each round is a deliberation of what the model of debate should be. One thing for 2ACs is that there is often a massive block of prepped defense and mitigation ya'll love to dump, which is perfectly fine, but I find cross-apps of case more convincing.

Kritik:

I'm fine with any kind of kritikal debate. Some of the most exciting rounds to watch are K on K debates with lots of thesis level clash e.g. Literally Anything vs Cap 🤔. I have a broad understanding of most post-modern and post-structuralist literature, including DnG, Lacan, Foucault/Agamben, Heidegger, Derrida, Baudrillard. However I am only human so please don't spread through densely cut cards from the Anti-Oedipus at warp speed and slow down a bit on thesis level claims. As a competitor I also read a lot of Asian-American sociological literature, and am familiar with such arguments as Model Minority, Conscientization, Asian Rage, etc. I also have a fairly comprehensive (although in no way definite) understanding of Wilderson. However my favorite philosophy of all has to be Buddhism, be it Mahayana, Theravada, Huayan, Sogen, Zen, Chan, etc. Daoism is also fascinating to me and is an area I am well-versed in.

If you're reading a K in front of me just make sure it has FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts, Alt, Alt Solvency. There's no flex time at TOC so I'll grant some leniency in terms of passing sheets for FW interps and Alt texts. Obviously Aff/Topic-Specific links are preferred but not necessary. FW should generally have a role of the critic/judge/ballot/debate argument with reasons to prefer. PIK alts are acceptable strategies, and I'm fine with the hidden reveal in the MO that the "Alt was a PIK all along!"

Case:

Nothing wrong with a good Politics DA. I wasn't the most prolific debater on case, usually reading DAs as a throwaway to something else, but I still expect ADs/DAs to have terminalized impacts and clear link stories. One thing debaters in HS tend to do is A. Not read impact framing B. Only compare the magnitude of the impacts. Weighing strength of link is something that will make my decision a lot easier. I believe terminal defense exists. If both teams are winning terminal defense then presumption flows negative. If the negative reads a non-PIC advocacy and both teams have terminal defense then presumption flows affirmative. Additionally, the uniqueness debate is one frustratingly undercovered with few teams comparing the quality of their evidence. As for types of arguments, I am fine with any kind of counterplan or case position.

Truth-Testing:

I understand truth-testing isn't the norm in Parli (and it hasn't been the norm for circuit LD/CX for a long time) but that shouldn't discourage you from reading the argument. I am perfectly fine abandoning an offense-defense paradigm in favor of truth-testing. Moral Skep, Trivialism, Rule-Following Paradox, Münchhausen trilemma, etc. are all acceptable positions for both teams.

Miscellaneous:

Sometimes I may frown while I flow. I promise I'm not mad at you, it's just my natural thinking face and sort of a tic. I'd rather not shake hands, although I've found that if you happen to extend your hand towards me I react out of instinct. Just know that I'm crying slightly inside because I don't have the best immune system in the world and medicine is expensive dawg.

Background

I competed in NPDA for 4 years at Concordia University Irvine. My BA is in Sociology and I hold a Master's in Public Policy from the University of California at Irvine.

TL;DR

I have not been active in debate a lot lately. I am employed the government, so I am personally inclined to believe (and, consequentially, to vote for arguments that):

• Reformism and the state are good

• Policymaking improves the world

• Sweeping structural claims about society are inaccurate/contingent

• Theoretical and procedural debates are only useful when they serve policymaking goals

Ballot

Debate is a game and participants have the creative choice in how they choose to engage in that game. I prefer topical debates that involve a discussion of policy making. I will protect against new arguments in the rebuttal, but it is the prerogative of the debaters to call points of order anyway to hold teams and critics accountable for new arguments. Use impact calculus to explain how the ballot is warranted for your side. You may not like the outcome if I have to do the weighing for you.

Theory

I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards. However, I have some arbitrary threshold for offense required to vote on a theory interpretation. I am unlikely to vote on procedural arguments about interpretation flaws or other nit-picky issues – they don’t implicate substance or norm-setting. I’ll buy reasonability brightlines that explain why the theory debate itself trades off with debating substance, why that’s bad, and why the difference between the interps does not matter.

Kritiks

Kritiks should explain why they turn the aff and have terminalized impacts. The alt should explain why they solve the aff, and what the post-alt world looks like. If I do not understand what the world looks like by voting for your alternative, I will not vote for it. I prefer critiques do not make essentializing claims, without warrants about why the aff engages in something that needs to be rejected. Links of omission are not compelling to me. You should assume that I am not familiar with your K lit base and that I may not necessarily resolve a messy debate in the way you expect.

Framework/Critical Affirmatives

Critical affirmatives should be topical or at least germane to the topic. Rejecting the resolution (or debatably worse, ignoring it entirely) is an uphill battle. I am highly sympathetic to framework. I am not convinced fairness is an impact, but it matters.

DA/CP

Disadvantages should explain why they turn the aff and have terminalized impacts.

Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the aff. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, however, I am sympathetic to counterplan theory when there is one topical affirmative. I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s). I think delay CPs are bad for debate and I'm predisposed to vote against them on principle.

Other

Speaker points are arbitrary. If you are unnecessarily mean, rude, condescending or just not a nice person in round, I’ll be decreasing points as you go. Likewise, I will reward clarity.

Otherwise, my speaker points will probably reflect my preferences above. Go for positions of good substance that encourage clash and enjoy rewards; do the opposite and expect punishment.

Note: Because it has been a little while since I've been active in debate, consider speaking below your top speed and with an emphasis on clarity, especially when I’m judging virtually. If I can't flow you it will only to hurt you.