Tabroom.com

2021 Kamiak Invitational

2021 — Online, WA/US

Policy - Open Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Niko Battle Jackson High School

Last changed on Mon January 11, 2021 at 8:33 AM PDT

Conflicted:

Kamiak (all teams)

quick prefs:

performance/id pol k - 1
structural k - 1
theory - 2
larp/policy - 2
(LD) phil - 3
(LD) trix - 4

background:

I debated for Kamiak HS in Mukilteo, WA and briefly debated for Wake Forest. I started debate in middle school, and throughout my career, I have earned 17 total TOC bids, qualifying in both LD (3 times) and Policy (1 time) and most recently cleared to quarterfinals of GSU in 2019 (my only college tourney). I have experience in both policy and LD debate on both the local and national circuit. I primarily read kritikal arguments, but trust and believe I can follow you and have experience in policy, phil, and theory stuff.

THIS PARADIGM IS WRITTEN FOR POLICY BUT MOST THINGS IN HERE APPLY TO LD TOO. LD SPECIFIC THINGS ARE NOTED AS SUCH.

pre round:

yes put me on the chain (emailnikob@gmail.com)

Pronouns: black/black or they/them

SPEAKS

[Voices Update] - In round robins speaks matter more, so I will give actual speaks. None of the extras apply, but the minuses certainly do.

Speaks are wack and arbitrary and I don't think they are a good tiebreaker. I wish tournaments would use opp wins as the first tiebreaker instead and I will die on that hill. With that being said, I'm a bit of a speaks fairy unless you do something blatantly offensive in which case speaks will go down down down down down faster than Jay Sean can sing it. And, if you don't get that reference then strike me ;)

+2 speaks if you bring me iced coffee w/ sugar and lots of cream because judging is wayyyy more tiring than competing

+1 speaker point for 2 well executed West Wing references throughout the debate - tell me what they were after your speech so I can keep track or in case I miss it.

+.5 speaker points if youre in LD and you say "we meet" just because I think its wack that some judges care enough to take away speaks, and as someone who did both events it really annoyed me.

-1 speaker point if you misgender your opponent and they don't call it out. Repeated violations especially if its called out will lead to larger "punishments" or whatever.

-5 speaker points for saying "I'm not racist but..." or any variation.

random musings:

tech > truth, but tech without some truth is rarely enough

(LD only) good tricks debate makes judging easy bad tricks debate makes judging hell // [post camp update] and I will not vote on shoes theory or any other theoretical violation about your opponents clothing and/or appearance (identity args exempt). Arguments like shoes theory and etc. are antithetical to the purpose of this activity and I guarantee you will not like your speaks or the decision should you try to read them in front of me.

if you're gonna larp (straight up policy) please for the love of God weigh impacts

A dropped argument is a dropped argument, but it's up to you to tell me the implications of it.

sass and shade are fun...apparently people think I'm a rude debater, but who cares. If sassy/"rude"/shade is your thing then feel free to do you when I'm in the back.

actual stuff:

tl;dr - do you. I like to think I'm pretty tab and can evaluate any type of debate. Tech and the flow are probably more important to me than others who debated like I did in HS. I'm a pretty simple judge so if you weigh your impacts and tell a story in the 2nr/2ar you'll be fine.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE: 7.5/10 - I've judged a fair amount this season but haven't been coaching as much so don't expect me to know what solvency advocates are shit or what the gold standard definition for reform is.

*Current LD topic - 6/10 - something about drones right?

k debate:

general

we love that. If this is your thing then go for it, but if it isn't please don't make me sit through 2 hours of a bad k debate. I don't think that the negative (for most Ks) needs to win an alternative if they can prove that the aff sucks or that their structural analysis of the world is both preferable and incompatible with the 1ac. Also, chances are I understand and am familiar with your buzz words, but that doesn't mean you should rely on them to win the round. If I can't explain to the other team why their aff, performance, or implicit assumptions in the 1AC/resolution are problematic then it will almost always be an aff ballot. For the aff, I never understood why debaters don't go for the impact turn strat against certain K's. Obviously, I don't condone teams standing up and saying things like racism/sexism/etc. good, but going for cap good, fem IR bad, etc. is fine. Lastly, sometimes I feel as if 2as get so focused on answering the K that they forget to win that their aff is in some way a good departure from the status quo, which is to say please extend your offense in the 2ar.

Clash Rounds

For K aff teams, if you are losing my ballot to cap you are probably doing a lot of things wrong. I think most fwk/cap teams I've seen and most of those rounds I've been in has been underdeveloped on the cap side. The 2ac, if done correctly, should pretty much shut down the cap route. There's should be almost no way the 2n knows more about your theory and it's interactions with cap than the 2a does, which should make those debates pretty easy for you to get my ballot. Framework on the other hand...I feel like k aff teams need to do a significantly better job defending a model of debate, winning debate is bad, winning the aff is a prior question to the resolution, or etc. I tend to vote for framework in clash rounds (not because I enjoy or ideologically agree with it), but because the ^ things are often not executed well. Framework teams, please make sure the arguments the 2nr goes for are somewhere in the block and not just the same tired canned 2nr that somebody stole from Hemanth. Carded TVAs with proper extensions are pretty damning for the aff and your good research/engagement will likely be rewarded (either with speaks or the ballot). I think procedural fairness is an impact, and it will be somewhat of a hard sell to convince me otherwise absent the aff team putting in some work; this doesn't mean I won't vote on structural fairness ow or impact turns, but rather that you actually need to warrant, explain and extend those arguments. I'd much rather see a framework 2nr on limits/truth testing/procedural fairness than skills and policy education, but hey that's just me. I also think that framework teams need to engage in case significantly better than what most teams currently do. Tbh probably slightly better for policy teams in k aff v. fwk rounds and slightly better for k teams in policy aff v. k rounds.

k v. k rounds

I got u...win your theory of power, framing and relevant offense.

policy(LD - LARP):

weigh weigh weigh weigh! I think more than any other stylistic approach to debate, policy teams NEED to do more comparative weighing. You will likely be unhappy with my decision if I can't point to specific points on my flow to weigh between your competing nuke war/extinction/etc. scenarios. I love watching policy teams who have nuanced, fun and creative impact scenarios. Some personal preferences for policy rounds are below -

Judge kick/choice is just not a thing. I'm still baffled how teams win arguments on this; it always seemed like lazy debating to me, and you are probably better off investing that time on other parts of the flow. Obviously if its conceded I won't hack against it, but I can't promise it won't be reflected in your speaks. I think strategic 2nrs will know when to go for the CP and when to kick it and defend the squo, so I'm not inclined to do that work for you.

Live by the flow, die by the flow...I think I'm a pretty well-informed person when it comes to politics/IR, but I probably won't know enough to fill in the gaps of actual nuanced scenario analysis which means you need to weigh and make the arguments you want to hear in the RFD.

I'd much rather watch an engaging 3 off policy strat then sit through watching some poor 1nr try to kick 12 of the 14 off read.

T: I fucking love T. Go for it in front of me. Go for it often in front of me. Go for it well in front of me. Biggest mistakes I see teams going for T in front of me do if forget to extend internal links to their impacts and that's the tea (pun intended). If youre a "K team" and you beat a policy team on T let's just say you'll like your speaks. I think one of the reasons I find framework ideologically ridiculous is because I've seen some really non-T policy affs and I always get indignant - like the conditions aff on this topic or the Saudi aff on last years J/F LD topic.

(LD Only) Phil:

Usually pretty simple debates imho, but make sure you respond to your opponents fw justifications as well as extend your own. After judging almost nothing but phill working at NSD all summer, I feel like these rounds are nearly impossible to resolve absent actual responses/weighing. Also, I'd much rather watch a substantive framework debate between Kant and Hobbes than see someone use Hobbes to trigger linguistic skep and have to watch a six minute 2nr on it.

Theory:

down for anything - weigh standards and win an abuse story. Here are some defaults (obv up for debate) See my note at the top about certain types of LD friv theory. I should clarify that my threshold in theory is slightly higher in policy than in LD and I'm not as open to friv theory in policy. I think policy is a more educational activity, and I don't want to see it go down a similar path vis-a-vis theory.

No RVIs

Text over spirit

meta theory = theory

theory = K

competing interps

drop the arg

fairness = edu; both a voter

Sam Daily Sehome High School

Jacob Dawson Hire 8 rounds

Mr. Mike Fitzgerald Kamiak High School

Last changed on Fri March 19, 2021 at 12:53 AM PDT

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fitzgerald,+Michael

Michael Fitzgerald
Kamiak High School 2007
University of WA BA Political Science 2011

---

Cross Examination Debate Paradigm

I'm a tabula rasa judge with respect to the arguments that I will listen to.

It is important to me that I see an obvious progression on the flow within the round given the arguments made during constructive speeches and questions asked and answers given during cross examination.

Having clear voting issues articulated during rebuttal speeches is more advantageous than not, and having clear ways to comparatively weigh various arguments within the round will help to narrow the bounds for how I arrive at my reason for decision.

I flow the round the best I can, if the speaking is unclear then I will say clear. If I have to say clear a second time speaks will be reduced by a half point. If I have to say clear a third time (this is very rare) then I will grant one less speaker point.

If you have any questions for further clarification of my paradigm it's important that you ask those questions prior to the beginning of the first constructive speech. After that point it is unlikely that I will answer any further questions with respect to my paradigm.

Anything that I do not understand with respect to clarity will not count as an argument on my flow, so it is advantageous to consider slowing down to such a degree that it is clear to me should I state the word clear during a speech.

---

UPDATED LD Paradigm for the 2021 Season.

I was 4A State Champion in LD(WA) in 2006 and a 4A Semi-finalist for LD at State 2007. Most of my experience as a competitor was with Lincoln Douglas debate although I did compete as a policy debater for a year and so I am familiar with policy debate jargon.

Summary of my paradigm:

Speaking quickly is fine, I will say clear if you are not clear to me.

Theory is fine, I default reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given an articulated justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation that is insufficiently contested, then that increases the likelihood I will vote for a competing interpretation. Unique frameworks and cases are fine (policy maker, etcetera), debate is ultimately your game.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. Cross examination IS important, and I do reward concessions made in cross examination as arguments that a debater can't just avoid having said.

I disclose if the tournament says I have to, or if both debaters are fine with disclosure and the tournament allows disclosure. I generally do not disclose if the tournament asks judges not to disclose.

The key to my paradigm is that the more specific your questions about what my paradigm is, the better my answers that I can provide for how I'll adjudicate the round.

The longer version:

Speaking: Clarity over quantity. Quality over quantity. Speed is just fine if you are clear, but I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, etc the entire debate. Pitch matters, if I can't hear you I can't flow you. Excessive swearing will result in lower speaker points.

Theory debate:
Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is pretty high. If I feel like a negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 3 independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a team of people with PhD's to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory on it, I'll probably vote Affirmative.

Cross Examination:
I'm fine with flex prep. Cross examination should be fair. Cross examination concessions are binding, so own what you say in cross examination and play the game fairly.

--- Speaking: The same rules for clarity always apply- if I don’t understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28.
You will lose speaker points if you:
1. Use an excess of swearing. If swearing is in a card, that’s allowed within reason. I understand some Kritiks require its use as a matter of discourse, but outside of carded evidence I absolutely do not condone the use of language that would be considered offensive speaking in public considering debate is an academic and public speaking competition.
2. Are found to be generally disrespectful to either myself as the judge or to your opponent. This will be very obvious, as I will tell you that you were extremely disrespectful after round.

You can generally run any type of argument you want in front of me. I generally believe that for traditional LD debate that all affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win (value/criterion), and that the negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation- the burden on either side is different. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently. I’ll listen to a Kritik. The worse the Kritik, the more susceptible I’ll be to good theory on why Ks are bad for debate.

Kritiks that in some way are related to the resolution (instead of a kritik you could run on any topic) are definitely the kind I would be more sympathetic to listening to and potentially voting for.

When I see a good standards debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks really matters in my adjudication of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I don’t like blippy debate. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. In terms of priorities, there are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards (whichever one they decide to go for), and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, replete with warrants and weighted impacts, is the best route to take for my ballot.
I approach judging like a job, and to that end I am very thorough for how I will judge the debate round. I will flow everything that goes on in round, I make notations on my flows and I keep a very good record of rounds.

If something is just straight up factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, don’t expect to win it as an argument.

I'll clarify my paradigm upon request, my default this season has generally been tabula rasa. It's also important to have articulated voting issues during rebuttals.

Congressional Debate Paradigm

I look to several factors to determine what are the best speeches for Congressional Debate when I am adjudicating this event.

To decide the best competitor with respect to speeches I look to speech quality and I consider total number of speeches with respect to if recency is utilized strategically to deliver speeches when there is an opportunity to speak. The more speeches given that are consistently of high quality the more likely that I rank that competitor higher overall.

With respect to speech quality the speeches I tend to give 5 or 6 to have a few important elements. First is the use of evidence. For evidence I am listening closely to if it is primary or secondary evidence, and I'm also carefully listening for citation of evidence to qualify the importance of the evidence with respect to the chosen topic of discussion.

Second is speaking delivery. I'm carefully listening to see if speaking time is used to effectively communicate with the audience. Specifically I'm listening for the use of the word uh, um, overuse of the word like, and also if there's significant amounts of unnecessary pausing during speeches (3-5 seconds). I'm also carefully listening for if there's unnecessary repetition of words. In terms of more advanced speaking delivery things I'm carefully listening for, there's word choice, syntax, metaphor and simile and whether there's an effort being made with respect to vocal dynamics. A speech that is good but monotonous might be ranked 5 while a speech that is of similar quality and employs the use of vocal dynamics to effectively communicate with the audience would likely be ranked 6 instead, for example.

Third is organization. I'm carefully listening to see if the speech is organized in such a way that it effectively advocates for the chosen side to speak on. A speech organized well generally has an introduction or thesis to explain what the speech is discussing, has several distinct arguments, and some kind of conclusion to establish why the speech is being given to affirm or negate the legislation.

For evaluating questions with respect to deciding the best competitor there's two areas of decision happening when I judge Congressional Debate.

Question asking. For question asking I'm carefully listening to see if the question is a clarifying question or if it is one that advances the debate for the chosen side of the questioner or challenges arguments that were made by the questioned. I'm also making an effort to consider volume of questions with respect to participation for the competition. Meaning that if a competitor gives good speeches and consistently asks effective questions when the opportunity is afforded to them to do so then that competitor will likely rank higher than competitors that give good speeches but ask a lot less or no questions.

Question answering. For question answering the important things I'm carefully listening for is if there's an actual answer given or a declination to give an answer. I'm also listening to see if the answer advocates for the chosen side to speak on with respect to the legislation, and if it effectively responds to the question asked.

---

Kelley Kirkpatrick Mount Vernon High School

Last changed on Sun March 24, 2024 at 7:12 AM PDT

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

Carolyn Ky Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 5, 2021 at 9:58 AM PDT

Hi! I'm Carolyn! I use she/her pronouns

kamiak '20

stanford '24

Add me to the email chain: carolynkyy@gmail.com

Paradigm inspired by Kai Daniels, Niko Battle, and Larry Dang

tldr- Tech > Truth. Read whatever you want. When left to my own devices, I lean on my defaults, but prefer to be persuaded on how I should view the debate. CX is binding. Flow-oriented and speed should be dictated by clarity. Ending Speeches: Write My Ballot for Me. Start with overview with offense on top.

LD specific: Did policy debate in high school, so LARP/Policy judging is best. I'm not great for traditional or tricks debates. Most of my policy paradigm should apply. Let me know if you have any questions!

quick takes:

T > Theory
fairness is an impact
will vote on cheap theory shots when dropped unless it's a reverse voting issue
should be able to run a line between any arg in the 2ar to the 1ar
Flex prep is okay
Speaks start at 28.5 and I'll move that up and down. 29+ is reserved for people that I think will break or at least make the bubble.

Affs

Be super clear when reading the plan text
Don't enjoy affs with a bunch of scenarios that aren't developed
Affs should have good, well-warranted i/l evidence
I'm willing to vote on presumption
Don't enjoy plan flaw debates but willing to vote on it if answered incorrectly

Topicality

Since I’m not super familiar with the topic, I would advise going a bit slower so I can digest the jargon easier.

T is about the model of debate. I don't care about in-round abuse.
competing interps > reasonability 60% of the time
impact debate > procedurals
For aff - please have a counterinterp and a clear defense of reasonability. Reasonability is your best friend in t debates in front of me, but winning reasonability is not an autowin. It just lowers your threshold on the standards debate (by how much? you tell me).
For neg - please have (1) clear impact calc on the standards debate AND (2) a case list. I lean aff on most standards but having those two thing outlined will provide a clear ballot if done well. fx and extra-t are underutilized

I tend to believe the weakest part of a DA is the internal link(s), so the aff should try to pick at it if true and the neg should be ready to defend it.
Clear throwaway da's that barely link to the aff will likely cause a slight drop in speaks
For aff - willing to vote on conceded or solid defense on DA
For neg - please have offense (i.e turns case). Generics das w/ specific links are great if ran well:)

Theory can go either way with good ev/better tech/sound education args
For aff - you should prop ask about judge kick, need to win some offense against the cp AND why that outweighs the net benefit
For neg - won’t judge kick unless specifically told to (at least by the 2nr). Smart CPs that question/use the aff's mechanism make me :) You should probably have a solvency advocate but don't have a problem with a CP without one unless it's brought up by the aff. Then, both sides have to resolve that.

Familiar with cap, foucault, antiblackness, queer theory, asian id, and imperialism/set col, but overall have a limited knowledge base of kritiks.
I tend to vote for k's, because the aff reads generic answers without indicting anything the neg is saying. In general, I think aff teams SHOULD win k debates, since the neg tends to read a bunch of blocks with throwaway jargon words and can't explain the k/alt in CX
If you can't explain the K in CX in your own words, your speaks will not be great.
Lean towards aff fw 80% of the time, since most fw debates seem to be a wash anyway. You're not likely going to win that Ks should not be allowed in debate. However, when neg wins fw, all the neg has to do is win a risk of a link
Both sides but esp the neg need to have historical examples (the more recent the better) that prove their methodology/praxis true. The team with the most convincing real-world examples of their impacts/impact turns/links/link turns is likely going to win the debate.
For aff - don’t lose your aff (the best form of offense) in most of these debates when you explain why your impacts outweigh or why it's just a good departure from the squo. Don’t be afraid to engage the K and their thesis claims. Please have a coherent strategy. Impact turns are underutilized, but don’t contradict your case. While I don't condone sexism/racism/etc. good, but cap good, fem ir bad, etc is gg. Perm with link turns and alt solvency deficits as net benefits is a cool strat too. Will vote on theoretical voting issues to reject the alt
For neg - Don't love big overviews. Line by line is key. Ideal: have specific link(s) to the aff, have external impacts for each link, and why each link turns case. At the very least, have a link contextualized to the aff. Find specific lines in the aff. Don’t necessary need to win the alt if the link is debated well enough to be a da on its own. You can kick the alt if you tell me where on the flow you're gonna get offense and win. Treating the K like a da/cp with case push will be rewarded.

K Affs

Neutral on whether kaffs should get perms and like these debates
Ending speeches: whoever simplifies the round the best with concrete arguments is likely gonna win the round.
FW: While I believe "framework makes the game work", I see myself voting against fw because the neg reads a big shell in the 1nc and block and can't write my ballot with clear voters and standards in the 2nr. However, if you're prepared to read framework beyond your blocks, fw is a very powerful argument.
TVAs: They don't have to solve the aff, but "Carded TVAs with proper extensions are pretty damning for the aff and your good research/engagement will likely be rewarded (either with speaks or the ballot)"- Niko Battle.
K v K debates are very enjoyable when both teams indict the problematic aspects of the other's scholarship. I genuinely find these debates one of the most educational parts of debate.
For aff - Your aff should have a tie to the topic and a competing model of debate, but what that means is debatable. I should clearly know what the aff is doing by the 2ac, especially if it's based on lit I'm not familiar with. Enjoy k affs w/ a performative aspect. Huge overviews are not ideal. Prefer most work done on the line by line.
For neg - Please answer the case (don’t need to read cards- analytically poking holes in the aff’s methodology or solvency is great too. I will vote on presumption. Don't be afraid to engage the aff. Also, be creative- in the way Kai Daniels says it: “k affs some of the time can be unfair - so you should be too. read 6 off, 3 counterplans, make them go for condo and then go for t and say it outweighs. read their own cards back at them as piks and take advantage of the fact that they invited a debate that is ~unpredictable~."

Sue Mohn Kamiak High School

Grayson Parker Mount Vernon High School

David Sposito Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 12:21 AM PDT

Debate and me

Epictetus says: "If you undertake some role beyond your capacity, you both disgrace yourself by taking it and also thereby neglect the role that you were unable to take."

Well, that ship has sailed, and I will be judging you. Here is my email: sposito@umich.edu

More seriously: I would prefer to judge debates squarely in the mainstream, where we all have more or less shared presuppositions about how things work, and a shared way of talking about those presuppositions. I think trying to extrapolate our reasoning outside of the bounds from which it must have come can lead to superficially compelling but ultimately shallow and in fact ridiculous chains of reasoning (here I think there's a horseshoe convergence between K stuff and long-termism and many "procedurals"). Hundreds of debates into my judging career I think I have discovered, almost comically belatedly, what people liked in straight-up policy debate, a format in which in which I almost never competed (I concerned myself mostly with tricks and sophistry, which despite this paragraph remain sorely underrated) and consequently didn't really appreciate. I guess I will still vote on intrinsicness, or dropped condo in a 1 off K debate, and in fact nothing about my belief in the importance of content-neutral evaluation of argument has changed (maybe I look at cards more and am more willing to say an argument wasn't made completely in the first place, but even for the latter I feel like I have a more permissive standard than many) but somehow the thing in me that instinctively and mischievously resonated with "villainy, and things generally hated" has been weakened, and now competes with the opposite instinct....

Plan text in a vacuum is both intuitive and desirable upon reflection. That said, T doesn't really bother me and offense-defense is how I think about it, but that includes me thinking that the aff starts with some offense because of the risk of substance crowdout. I don't know what's topical or not and so I advise trying to trick me (and guarding against the other side's tricks). I am a sort of credulous and unassuming person, and very sincere.

But: for philosophical reasons I won't bother with here but would be happy to talk about, I think that in ordinary, practical reasoning, there is a "best" way to read a statement in context, and I care immensely about that "best" reading for the resolution. So I care about "precision" and would prefer to keep any normative ("debatability") considerations at a distance unless the result is a total pragmatic disaster. In fact what I would prefer teams advocate might be that a relatively high "precision" standard needs to be met, as a gateway issue, before I even begin to evaluate the normative content.

Competing interpretations

Any time a reference is made to the round at hand in a debate that is properly about one interpretation or the other, I basically ignore it. Even more than offense-defense, this way of thinking is ground deep into me....

Counterplans

Limitless conditionality is not so bad, neither is process. "Functional only" is probably best but it's a debate. Judgekick is fine and the default. Theory is sometimes necessary because competition can't exclude everything (or shouldn't be made to), but the counterplans for which this is true are already broadly disreputable and thus not likely to be read in the first place.

Sufficiency framing feels like a logical consequence of offense-defense, and so I don't really know what could unconvince me of it....

I think that there are meaningful distinctions to be made between process counterplans and others (for theory, e.g. the butterfly effect resulting in the plan is not the same as something which was clearly intended, as obvious from its construction, to result in the plan resulting in the plan. Some consequences are more "natural" than others), and in fact the pushy dialectic that proceeds by uncooperatively nitpicking any kind of proposed definition by running to edge-cases I regard as literally the height of epistemic folly, antithetical to both thought and language. That said, that isn't enough for me to be good for theory overall, because I think the neg needs generics and think that process are the least bad ones, and in fact have some benefits to debating them. But it does make me less sympathetic to that style of reply to theory--I would prefer to simply conclude that they are basically fair and perhaps educational, not that I am so skeptical of what the aff is getting at that I can't help but conclude that it's OK despite my misgivings....

Text vagueness

For both plans and counterplans, this seems under-theorized. Is it really all just "normal means"? It doesn't bother me morally when texts are vague, not to say that there's no strategic cost.

DAs

I don't mind riders or links to fiat, really, but you need to answer the objections as usual. Politics is fine. I don't understand "link controls the direction of uniqueness" or the reverse.

Elections is very, very good right now and the link turns that I've seen are usually not so good, with I guess some exceptions. Honestly my personal judgment is that it's more likely that Trump is good (for Russia, for NATO, for some innovation thing) than that a carbon tax gains more votes than it costs. It seems like wishful thinking, or like I'm living in some alternate reality powered by Pod Save America agitprop. Obviously the aff has to say something (and there are things they can say) but I feel like even across decent skill disparities the neg is favored on link versus link turn....

The K

I am probably no longer workable for the K... I don't know why I am not automatically, jurisdictionally neg unless the aff can provide a textual counter-interp for every word and phrase in the resolution. Somehow after all this time I have been returned to the most naive, novice-level confusion about why the aff is allowed to be about something that isn't even plausibly near the topic. A similar thing on the neg, though less devastating: What is the answer to the perm double bind if the neg doesn't win framework? But if the neg is going for framework, what arguments do they seriously, sustainably have if the aff survives the 1AR extending boilerplate arguments about fairness?

Generics

Whether or not an argument is reusable between topics is logically unrelated to if it refutes the plan... I don't have any distaste or annoyance at generics. In fact the sentiment, if it's anything, is positive, like that toward old friends. And sunsets.

Risk

"Any risk" logic breaks down somewhere, for reasons of Pascal's mugging or the St. Petersburg paradox or others. Whether or not that logic is apt for risks of the size we discuss in debate rounds is an open question. "Tags start at 100%" seems like a bad norm, but it is our bad norm.

The will to win

I don't think it's advisable to send analytics....

In general, I admire confidence and feel sympathy for (not to say "I like") the fact that the will to win can sometimes result in unfriendliness.

I won't be offended if you think it's in your best interest to do unusual things with cross-ex, speaker positions, paper, et cetera.

Newnesss

The 2NC gets wholly new arguments. Neither the 1NR nor 1AR do without justification, although justifications are easy to make or come by.

Weird moves in the 2AR will be ignored: I don't want to adjudicate an edge case.

Something is new if I couldn't understand it from the earlier speech--I feel like that's intuitive, no?

Echoing

If, during your speech, your partner says a few words, you don't need to repeat them. Please don't push the line and ruin it for everyone.

I know speech times are broken, and so I will be a little more forgiving of aff theory arguments, but my background is still policy and my attitude still laissez fare. That said, I love philosophy and think its reasonable deployment could be interesting--but I don't judge or coach LD and in consequence don't know what you all are saying or how credible I would find it.

Vincent Xiao Ingraham High School

Last changed on Fri January 29, 2021 at 4:54 PM PDT

ingraham

toc qualled and all that stuff - i'm qualified

i reserve the right to exclude gamers

vincent xiao 6 9 7 at gmail dot com

top level

i won't vote for arguments that are violent to the other team. example: i won't vote for death good for personal reasons because it is psychologically violent to me.

most debates are decided by dropped arguments. try not to have those debates. organization and explanation are critical. if i don't understand the argument or its implications, i probably won't vote for it - this goes both for k stuff and economics. if i don't have the argument on my flow, tough luck. i won't make cross applications for you and you need to explain the implications of arguments. please do line by line, "embedded clash" is a nightmare to evaluate as a judge.

i am just way too biased towards consequentialism. not util necessarily, but i just believe that expected value is true. you can alter the way i calculate that value from policy-style util to something else, but in the end it's very hard for me to ignore consequences.

arguments must have a claim and a warrant. something that matters for me is whether the warrant backs up the claim. an inductive argument that looks like "nazi germany was expansionist, therefore offensive realism is true" is weak and uncogent because the premise does not likely prove the conclusion. that's like saying, "1 ball out of this bag of 30 is red, so all balls in the bag are red." people get away with this too much. i rate system level statistics(established statistical correlation with a high r value) much higher than other forms of evidence, and comprehensive examples(a preponderance of recent and relevant examples going one way) are up there too. your argument relying on a single analogy or a single example is really not up to the standards of the real world.

something i'm still struggling with is how to evaluate these types of arguments when they're dropped. i lean towards being lenient and giving the conclusion at least some weight, but if you piss me off i may not. i expect to get more ideological about this, honestly.

arguments:

t - interp, violation, standards is a full shell. softer on we-meet & reasonability - i'll buy 100% risk of we meet, and you'll never hear me say "any risk of a violation means i vote neg". top level impact analysis is probably the most important thing. i'm honestly pretty good for t - i think lots of topics these days are massive and encourage terrible "functionally limited"(read: there is one theoretically illegitimate cp that solves everything) topics.

- i care about the quality of t evidence quite a bit. i think that literature determines preparation which is probably the best internal link to impacts.

- i hold the 2ac to the 1nc - if the 1nc is a single card and a line about limits, the 2ac can be about that quality and the 1ar can be very new.

da - clear link chains and impact weighing. good defense can equal 0% risk, but that's a very very high threshold and you should not bank on it. tell me the story of the disad. i like it when people go for good, core of the topic disads. i really dislike poorly constructed politics disads, but i understand why you're running them if the topic is really bad. at the very least, please have them make structural sense.

- most links and most uq is not yes/no. you should acknowledge that and work around it rather than pretending it's not true.

cp - run whatever, but i'm probably more willing to pull the trigger on theory than most people. i think negs are probably getting away with too much. if your options are to read solvency deficits you know are terrible or go for theory, probably go for theory. bad cps should be taken down by analytics.

-judgekick should start in the 2nc.

ks on the neg - if i don't get it, i won't vote for it. simple ks like cap or security are no problem. if it's more complicated, i will probably lean aff on "i don't know what this is" if it's poorly explained. even if it is a k i know relatively well(wilderson, mainline setcol, deleuze, agamben, baudy) i dislike being obscurantist because you know the other team knows less than me. i am willing to at least reduce speaks and if it's really poorly explained it's possible i won't evaluate it.

framework isn't always that important - consider what actual strategic value it gets you. i see affs which can directly challenge the thesis of the k waffling around talking about fairness or whatever and i don't like that. to be honest, i probably lean neg on k framework - it just makes sense to me that discursive/epistemological implications of the 1ac should be weighed first. however, if the aff wins that their discourse/epistomology is good(not that hard to win against ks that aren't high theory), i vote aff even though the neg won framework.

the counterpoint to that for the neg is that links of omission make me sad. please have a link to the aff. running abolitionism against an aff that legalizes corporate crime for the economy isn't gonna work, because that aff isn't a reformist strategy. i think this applies a lot for extinction affs vs the k - the neg runs some link that's for soft lefts affs, and the aff just concedes it. please don't do that.

the alt should resolve the impact. i won't do cross application and implicit clash for you.

ks on the aff - i think framework is a good argument vs k affs. you should try to be topical, or at least follow the words in the resolution. i don't really have any ideological views on fairness or anything - i think it's mostly impact analysis. consider going for the k vs the k aff even if you're a policy team.

i will be honest and say that i didn't go for framework much. i didn't hit k affs much, and when i did, i usually ended up going for some kind of k. maybe not the greatest for clash debates, but probably solid for both straight policy and kvk debates

edit for ld:

turns out i understand phil pretty well, but you should probably still go to larp/k debate for me. no tricks though please.

edit for pf(which i keep getting shoved into):

i am a policy judge. four things:

1. i care a lot about tech. arguments in the final focus must be in the summary, and not cross-ex. the summary is not allowed to make new arguments that aren't extending their case or directly responding to a point the other team made. i will not evaluate arguments that aren't extended through each speech, and i will evaluate every dropped argument as presumptively true.

2. i default to utilitarianism. this seems to be a big deal this topic, because everyone reads these authoritarianism impacts. absent a clear reason why preventing democratic backsliding is more important than preventing people from dying, i will default to preventing people from dying.

3. i don't care about stylistic things. it doesn't matter if you spread, which arguments you make, what you wear, etc. absent a compelling reason to care about those things, argumentation always comes first

4. i care a lot about evidence ethics. in policy, it's expected to sent the entire text of the evidence, as well as a link, author quals, etc. you also have to read directly from the text of the evidence to cite it. it's incomprehensible to me that this is not the case in pf.

- time taken to find evidence comes out of the team finding evidence's prep. it should take no time to find evidence(you are allowed to take time sending evidence)

- you should challenge evidence often, and if you find inconsistencies point them out. +1 whole speaker point if people send out speech docs in a policy-esque fashion.

for this nsa topic, i actually probably have more topic knowledge than you because of the 2015 surveillance and to some extent the 2019 executive authority topics.

also, i've judged a lot of rounds but mostly in tournaments that don't show up in tab, locals and stuff.

Vincent Xiao Ingraham High School

Last changed on Fri January 29, 2021 at 4:54 PM PDT

ingraham

toc qualled and all that stuff - i'm qualified

i reserve the right to exclude gamers

vincent xiao 6 9 7 at gmail dot com

top level

i won't vote for arguments that are violent to the other team. example: i won't vote for death good for personal reasons because it is psychologically violent to me.

arguments:

- i care about the quality of t evidence quite a bit. i think that literature determines preparation which is probably the best internal link to impacts.

- i hold the 2ac to the 1nc - if the 1nc is a single card and a line about limits, the 2ac can be about that quality and the 1ar can be very new.

- most links and most uq is not yes/no. you should acknowledge that and work around it rather than pretending it's not true.

-judgekick should start in the 2nc.

the alt should resolve the impact. i won't do cross application and implicit clash for you.

edit for ld:

turns out i understand phil pretty well, but you should probably still go to larp/k debate for me. no tricks though please.

edit for pf(which i keep getting shoved into):

i am a policy judge. four things:

- time taken to find evidence comes out of the team finding evidence's prep. it should take no time to find evidence(you are allowed to take time sending evidence)

- you should challenge evidence often, and if you find inconsistencies point them out. +1 whole speaker point if people send out speech docs in a policy-esque fashion.

for this nsa topic, i actually probably have more topic knowledge than you because of the 2015 surveillance and to some extent the 2019 executive authority topics.

also, i've judged a lot of rounds but mostly in tournaments that don't show up in tab, locals and stuff.

Jason Young Garfield High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 12:35 AM PDT

Bottom line: I'm a tabula rasa judge. Run whatever you would like to run, and tell me how you would like me to evaluate the round.

Email: jasoncxdebate@gmail.com

Experience:

I debated CX on the national circuit for 4 years in high school, did not debate in college. I've been coaching CX at Garfield HS since 2014. I judge ~50 rounds a year, split between the local and national circuit. We took a team to the TOC in 2021. My day job is as a social science researcher who does a lot of applied research with Indigenous, Black, and BIPOC communities. This keeps me pretty engaged with philosophical and critical theoretical literature, and very attendant to questions of power and equity. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male who was educated and socialized within a Western context, which undoubtedly shapes my epistemic view of the world.

Feelings about specific things:

T/FW: Excellent. Specific and creative violations are more fun to judge than generic ones
DA: Great.
CP: Awesome. Highly specific CP strategies (such as PICs) tend to produce more interesting debates than generic CPs, but they certainly both have their place.
Ks: Excellent. Especially if you can articulate specific links to the aff

Policy affs: Great
K affs: Awesome. I find that K vs K debates are often more interesting than K vs FW debates, but that isn't always the case

Theory: Good. If you want to win on theory, make it more substantive than a few warrantless blips
Disclosure Theory: Not very convincing for me. I think that the open source/disclosure movement within debate has been somewhat uncritically embraced in a way that doesn't fully consider how the open sourcing of knowledge reproduces new forms of inequity (often along neoliberal/service economy lines, wherein better resourced teams are better able to take advantage of the open knowledge economy).
New arguments in the rebuttals: Generally not a good idea. Completely new arguments should not be made in the rebuttals. I will strongly protect the negative team from new arguments in the 2AR.
Judge Kicking: Nope. Don't expect me to judge kick things for you. Make a strategic choice for yourself.
Overviews and impact calculus: Yes, please. Clearly frame my choice for me at the end of the round, and you are much more likely to get my ballot. Also, 'even if' statements can be super persuasive in the final rebuttals.
Backing up Claims with Warrants: Super important.
Impact Calculus and Overviews: Also super important - I like being told how I should vote, and why you think I should vote that way.
Clipping: Don't do it, I will vote you down for cheating.
Speaking: Please be clear! If you're clear, then I am fine with speed. Clarity is especially important in the online debate format.
Dropped arguments: These flow through as 'true' for the team making them.
Voting: I will vote for one team over the other. Don't ask for a double win (or loss).

At the end of the day, I believe that debate should be about the debaters and not about me. My job is to create a safe and educational space, and to do my best to decide the round based on the arguments rather than on my own beliefs. If you clearly tell me how you think I should be judging, then there shouldn't be any big surprises.

Login to Tabroom

2021 Kamiak Invitational

2021 — Online, WA/US

Policy - Open Paradigm List

Judges