AJ Edwards (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Alex Tseng - PLNU
PSCFA: I'm not a communications critic. I will evaluate the debate in the most technically way possible. Debate as national circuit as possible if that matches your skillset. If you can't, I'll still do the best I can but both sides will like my decision more, the more national circuit you are.
TLDR: Read the arguments you want. I will flow and evaluate them. I will always vote on the execution of an argument rather than whether I think it is true or not. I have a slight preference for policy debates but I also like a well-executed Kritik debate. All of my preferences are just preferences and can be reversed through good debating.
Full Paradigm:
Top level things:
-As a caveat, everything in my paradigm is just my opinion and can be reversed through good debating.
-Tech>Truth.
-Nothing is at 0 or 100% risk. I evaluate debate as to which arguments have a higher risk and which ones are quantifiably bigger or implicate the debate on a deeper level.
-Debate determines risk until I'm told why it isn't.
-I don't have a problem voting for "lies" but I'd rather vote for true arguments.
-Some people whose opinions about the debate I admire are Chris Tai, Scott Wheeler, Raam Tambe, and Danish Khan.
-In my opinion, the negative does not read enough off-case positions most of the time.
-Judge instruction is underutilized but the team that uses it more will make the debate easier to decide.
My Decision Process:
Some habits in my decision process:
-I usually evaluate defense first, I usually vote for the least mitigated argument.
-I make the techiest decision, usually without explanation from the other team. I pay more attention to implications when left to my own devices.
I will do my best to actively assess who is ahead during the debate however, this does not mean an instant decision. I will try to give a timely well thought out decision as fast as I can because I believe it's the debaters job to debate their best, and the judges to be an active listener and decisionmaker which means to think critically through the debate as it goes on. The way I use this process is by assigning risk based on explanation and/or comparison of arguments. Usually, I base the way I assign risk of on dropped arguments, explanations, and comparisons between which arguments should be considered to be the nexus question of the debate and which should not. Just to be clear when I mention explanation, I don't mean explain your argument about what is but how it fits throughout the overall strategic context of the round. This means quantifying why your evidence proves that argument has a broader scope than your opponents. Absent reading evidence, I usually vote for the team that has best articulated why their argument's risk is higher or can be quantiified as much bigger. Good ev/argument comparison, framing arguments, and evidence that can be well explained in a strategic context can shift this process in your favor. The reason for my decisionmaking process is that I believe in tech over truth and I don't try to do alot of work people. Explanation is important but only in the context of me evaluating the debate in a purely technical way because I do not want to evaluate the relative truth claims of arguments as much as I can. That is not so say I am truth over tech, the process I just listed probably only applies if the debate is close. If an argument is dropped, it's dropped and I have SUPER LOW threshold for dropped arguments which I will vote on. The more you use the process above to direct my decision, the less my predispositions factor into the decision.
I believe that the evidence determines the scope of the argument. I.E if you powertag your extinction card but it only says small scenario for war, I'll probably not against a powertagged card if the other team points it out but I'll vote for lies in any other instance.
Online Specific Stuff:
-Go 85-90% of how fast you would go in an in-person round.
-I do not require you to turn your camera if you do not feel comfortable doing so.
-If you are reading blocks that are mostly analytics, slow down a bit because not all of us have the best internet connections.
Policy Paradigm:
Kritiks:
I am a mid judge for the kritik. I think that thesis claims and links are the most important part of the Kritik. Thesis level claims should forward a description of the world that filters how I evaluate the other parts of the Kritik. For example, if you read antiblackness or Psychoanalysis, you would want to win arguments such as Blackness is ontological, Psychoanalysis is true, or the state is irredeemable. Links should be about the plan, not just rant about why a certain ideology is bad. I'm probably the worst for the K on the alt. If you don't have a K that relies heavily on winning the thesis, you should focus on winning the alt the most. I don't think I'm in the automatically assuming that the alt doesn't do anything camp but I'm not deep enough into K lit to make extrapolations based on certain buzzwords or phrases. Referencing specific lines of aff evidence that show that the aff is the ideology you are Kritiking will go far. Aff teams should leverage their aff against the K way more imho. I understand Kritik's are multifaceted and have many ways to win on them, so both sides should explain why the parts of the Kritik debate they are winning matter if you decide to divert from my preferences.
T vs Policy Aff:
Plans should be topical. Painting a scary version of the topic that creates an unreasonable research burden for the negative is always a good strategy. Depicting a litany of affs that the 2N cannot prepare for is fine. If you make a ground argument, explain why the specific Affs, Disads, or Counterplans are necessary for your side to have a fair chance at winning rather than just saying we lose "x" ground without explanation as to why that ground is necessary in the first place.
T vs K aff:
I prefer that the affirmative read a topical plan but that is not a deal-breaker. I recognize that some Kritikal affirmatives have a great deal of value and are some of the best arguments in debate read by the best debaters but a lot of K affs are part of a phase that some debaters have where they want to be a "K debater" because it's fun, new, or more interesting. Rants aside, my preferences are just that; my preferences, I will ultimately vote for the team that does the better debating in the most technical way possible in every debate I judge no matter what argument the debaters read.
If you develop 1-3 pieces of good offense, I will be more inclined to vote aff. In general, the whole "we're a discussion of the resolution" argument is a decent counter-interpretation but the more aff takes the side of the discussion that affirms the action of the resolution, the more likely I'll vote aff. Redefining the words of resolution can be good too. I think that affirmatives that don't have the grammar of a plan but still affirm the action of the resolution like the "No is illegal" aff from the immigration topic are up for debate because it still gave some ground (but not enough) to the negative. Anything that goes in the direction of carte blanche rejection of the topic will be a harder sell.
If you are against a kritikal affirmative, I think that procedural fairness is the most tangible impact that my ballot has an effect over. I prefer if you read standards that engage or turn the aff's offense or demonstrate that their description of the world and debate is inaccurate or problematic. DO NOT argue racism, sexism, homophobia good, etc. but challenge the operationalization of the aff's theory in the debate by reading standards that challenge the scope of the claim that the 1AC forwards.
General Policy Stuff:
- Framing is a supplement, not a substitute for answering disads.
- Read arguments that justify the educational model of how we talk about impacts. Things "Learning about extinction is valuable" or "Extinction prediction education is bad"
-If you are reading a soft left, read arguments about extinction prediction models fail rather than some ethical orientation about immediate violence comes first.
-Debate in meta-level characterizations that tell the story of the debate. COMPARE arguments. Say things like link speaks to a broader event that the aff causes or the link evidence only describes a small event that the aff outweighs. OR "the aff's advantage is minuscule but the disad is huge because they conceded "x", "y", and "z" argument.
Counterplans:
Read them. There's not much to say here. Read a counterplan. Make sure it solves a sufficient part of the aff. Define what is a sufficient amount of the aff is solved by the counterplan and vice versa for the aff. Ideally point to lines in the evidence that identify these thresholds for solvency. Quantify counterplan solvency/solvency deficits by telling how big or a small counterplan solvency or the solvency deficit is. Solvency advocates for counterplans are helpful but not having one isn't a deal breaker.
Disads:
I evaluate them probabilistically and usually don't vote on arguments that are direct yes/no questions. Make arguments about the Aff/Disad having higher risk is the way to go for me. I care more about the impact debate than I used to but the link is still most important. Politics Disads are good and they teach valuable political forecasting skills that are extremely useful in the field of political science like making predictions about the political ramifications of political action in a probabilistic manner.
Theory:
The debate determines whether a counterplan is legitimate or not as well as any other theoretical question. All things equal, I default negative on condo, states, international counterplans, PICs, and process counterplans. If you are to go for theory, make arguments about why the negative promotes a model of debate that creates worse education or lower quality arguments rather than some claim about why it makes debate too hard for you. Counterplan theory aside, I'm agnostic. You don't have to have an interpretation but it would better if you did. Don't blaze through blocks. Do line by line.
LD paradigm:
- All of the policy stuff applies.
- I have little to no comprehension of "phil" or techy strategies germane to LD and I will evaluate "phil" like a Kritik. The closer you are to policy debate, the happier everyone will be with my decision.
- I think condo is good but I find condo bad to be more debatable in LD than in policy.
-My initial thoughts is that "Nebel" or "T: Whole Res" is a ridiculous argument. I think that it opens up the aff to all sorts of ridiculous PICs. However, I won't reject the argument on face but arguments about format distinctions between LD and Policy and justifications for why this interpretation pushes better solvency advocates will make this a more tenable argument when reading it in front of me.
Speaker Points:
I start at a 28 and work up or down from there.
27 - Still learning
28 - Alright
28.5 to 29 - You probably can break
29.5 and above - Semis/Finals
Annalise Welsh - PLNU
n/a
Bob Alexander - BPCC
n/a
Brianna Hosmer-Laky - PLNU
n/a
Jack Rogers - Judges
n/a
James Laky - PLNU
Im a parli debater at heart but in my twelve years Ive dabbled with all four major styles we
practice in the PacSW region (IPDA/TPDA, NPDA, LD, BP)
Tl;dr: Give me impacts and tell me why they outweigh your opponent. If you dont, Ill have to
do the work and you might not like the results.
K Debate: I love a good K. Consequently, that also means I hate lazy Ks. If there are major
components like Thesis, ROB, or any unique solvency then it will be very easy for your
opponent to non-unique the link level of your K. Solvency is the most important area of the K
and the most historically undercovered. Tell me how to sequence the K against case and theory.
If you dont; Ill probably weigh them equally and it will be easy for your opponent to win on
probability. Winning framework wont guarantee a win if you lose the rest of your K.
Theory: As a competitor, I was a theory hack, but that doesnt mean Ill vote for you just
because you run a spec sheet. I default to reasonability unless you say the words competing
interps. I wont ignore RVIs but I have a pretty high bar for voting on them. I dont mind if you
run Theory as a time tradeoff but you shouldnt mind if your opponent calls you out for doing so.
MG theory is pretty much my favorite but it follows the same rules as theory out of the LOR
Case: Case debate seems like a lost art to me sometimes. Leverage your uniqueness, warrant
your links, and terminalize your impacts. I love the cross-application of arguments from one
sheet to another. I evaluate counterplans as an opportunity cost disad, and perms as theoretical
tests of competition.
Speed: I can track with speed and have no fundamental issue with it; however, I do have a
fundamental issue with debaters losing access to rounds, so if you can speed, great. But if your
opponent cannot, pay attention to that because I will be.
Impact Calc: Without impact calc, youre practically guaranteeing that I have to intervene in the
round in some way. I typically prefer probability to magnitude, but Ill vote on any calculus as
long as you give me reasons to prefer.
IPDA: While I typically find myself being a primarily tech over truth style judge, I understand
the purpose of IPDA is to be a more persuasive form of debate, so I will tend to be looser on my
expectations for mechanics (though not on my desire for a clean flow.) That said, if you tell me it
is a policy, you need to have a plan. With solvency. And advantages. Most of my ballots in IPDA
tend to come down to framing arguments. If youre telling me how I should vote and that youre
doing that thing best, youll probably win my ballot. I do not flow cross-x.
What I would like to see: Be creative and weird! I dont know what happened but when I was
debating, we ran advocacies based on Star Wars and My Little Pony and Starcraft and Lovecraft.
Ive won rounds on the argument that Finland doesnt exist. Im in no way saying you have to be
outlandish but please take the chance on running arguments in a way besides the most obvious
path.
Bottom line: debate is a game. Be gamey. But be fair and fun.
John Symank - CUI
n/a
Lucas Howard-Ron - UCSD
IPDA:
Please just keep things fun and approachable. I seriously discourage any rudeness or personal attacks, remember debate is still just an activity where two D1 yappers go head to head, nothing less or more. Basically just dont be a dick.
NPDA:
I am not super familiar with NPDA, but that doesnt mean you cant have super nuanced and specific impacts / approaches. That being said, if youre running tech or something completely left-field, just explain it to me in chill terms so I can consider it.
Speech:
Extemp:
Have fun here! I know Extemp is usually a very proper event but feel free to inject some personality into your speeches.
Impromptu:
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE actually do it impromptu. If a speech feels canned, Ill automatically place it beneath any off-the-cuff speech. I just love people being creative with their hobbies and really making those connections to the topic on their own.
Marc Ouimet - Judges
n/a
Megan Veilleux - LSUS
n/a
Nathaniel Hosmer - PLNU
I've been debating and coaching for about 10 years (NPDA, IPDA, BP, and LD). You can run any argument you want in front of me provided you give a good justification to do so and explain it well. In general, I prefer debate on the rez, if you run a K it had better be a well-structured one or I will likely vote it down. Tell me why you won and give me impacts!
Phil Sharp - Judges
n/a
Robert Campbell - UCSD
Head Coach, University of California Speech & Debate. Former member of the national championship teams at the University of Kansas. An ideal debate round involves organization of case and arguments, clarity, and clash (direct argumentation). I despise "spreading" (no auctioneer ever won an argument) and any Affirmative "K"s (debate the resolution).
Roxanne Tuscany - Judges
n/a
Sheila Ritchie (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Stephanie Newberry - ACU
n/a
