Paradigm

Ioel Katz
Florida Forensic League Hired Judges

make an email chain:ikatz116@gmail.com

#deBAYbies

debated policy and LD in HS for two years at Cypress Bay, first year judge.

Overall:

Most of all be respectful.. don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, or insult your opponent personally beyond their debating. I'm mostly cool with judging anything, but I'm not the best for certain args, although I'll vote on anything as long as it's warranted well enough and won on the flow. Cool w/spreading, signpost clearly, not just between flows but also on different part of the flow, i.e. on the K, on the perm, on the links, etc. I'll say "clear" twice or three times max. Don't spread analytics, I'll prolly miss them if not miss the warranting. Also, debate really is not that serious. You leave the room and no one knows what you're talking about. If there's something you should take away from it, it's a passion to get locally involved and make a change.. live up to the prescriptions you make. Also, don't call me judge, excessively.. preferable you don't address me at all. I won't dock speaks for not reading/adhering to my paradigm but my paradigm is the guide to gaining them.

Pref Rankings:

1--K

2--LARP/Theory

3--Trad

4--trix/phil

Quick Pref Charts:

Policy ----------------------------X----------------- K

Tech -----------------X-------------------------------Truth

Defense ------------------------------------------X-- Offense

Condo ---X------------------------------------------Not Condo

Clarity -------------X-------------------------------Speed

A2 --------------------------------------------X AT

A2 X-------------------------------------------- @

Analytics in the doc -X------------------------------------------- A blank text file

Extending warrants -------X------------------------------------- Extending authors

(what I like to judge) Alt ------X-------------------------------------------------- "Reject the Aff"

(what is probably better tactically) Alt ------------------------------------------X-------------- "Reject the Aff"

Personality ------X--------------------------------------- Doc-bot #00015

One off, case X--------------------------------------------- One million billion off case positions, case

Fairness is an impact ---X----------------------------- Fairness is not an impact

Presumption votes aff -----------------------------X- Presumption neg

Presumption -------X------------------------------- Never votes on presumption

Better ev ----X------------------------------------- More ev

Disclose ------X---------------------------------- "it's new"

New affs bad ------------------------X---------------- New affs good

Line by line-----------X--------------------------implied warrants/answer

Getting the shakes before a drop --------------------------------------------X The days passed, the heat grew

Argentine punk rock undercommons ------X------------------------------------- Generic K-aff

Debate is a game ----------------X--------------------------- Debate is actively harmful

Theory:

Clear interps, vios, standards.. don't spread through the standards I'll miss a few. You're good to pull out reject X one-liners from constructives as long as the extension clarifies the violation and the standards. I lean towards gut check bad theory.. you have to prove either that the harms in round were significant and/or that its a bad practice for debate at large. Give me a narrative for in round harms, give me a description of the telos of debate under their practices. A lil nitpick here but don't js name drop severance or reps without explaining the impact in the extension.. Why is severance bad? Whenever you're answering, don't just extend your standards, engage with theirs, at least defensively, don't just extend a block and expect me to discard the flow.

Condo is chill but I can be convinced otherwise, love a good condo debate, but if it gets into arbitrary stuff like 2 vs 3 conditional advocacies it's a wash on my flow. Dispositional advocacies can be kicked unless the aff puts offense on that flow.

I hate heavy underviews and spikes.. my bar for answering them is below the ground, but there should be some answer.. whether you group, go line by line, or read a new shell.

I generally think theory precedes the K unless I get an explanation for why the argument the kritik makes precedes their access to the shell or turns the shell.

Kritiks:

I debated a weird range of Ks in my career, but I'm most familiar with Anthro, Cap & Racial Cap, Pess, a lil Baudrillard, Set Col, Psychoanalysis etc. I'm unfamiliar with a lot of lit, especially pomo stuff, but I'd love to check it out and am open to judging it... make sure there's substantial warranting. I prefer a shorter overview and a lot of warranting in the line by line.. make me understand the kritik through the answers. I think embedded defense in the overview is also fine but I prefer lbl, even better if you could do both.

Stay away from buzzwords.. give me a thorough explanation in the line by line of your scholarship.. the goal shouldn't be to confuse or to be ahead, instead lean towards engaging debate about epistemic practices. If the goal of the K is education and shifting conversation, it should be understandable.

Perms on the kritik should be well warranted, I won't vote on an extension of a perm if there isn't an explanation of its viability or how voting for the perm doesn't trigger their offense. Also, perms are a test of competition, and not offense for the aff. I prefer offensive answers to the perm, put several DAs on the perms, don't just say they sever their reps if you have the time. Also, perm double bind is beautiful and underutilized; however, there should be an explanation of the perm beyond the warranting for the double bind if you're going for it; i.e, perm double bind - [x] - do the aff then the alt, or do the aff and the alt, etc.

Link debate goes hand in hand with the perm, if they win the no link then the perm is warranted and viable. If you link you lose only if they win the impact debate, and warrant/frame the K as a terminal link DA. Links should be specific, but this doesn't mean they can't be to institutions.. this does mean that you should pull out moments in cross, and in the aff, that link to the K. I want a thorough explanation about how their specific epistemic practices trigger your impacts, the bar for winning a no link on a generic link with a generic extension is low, but I lean very heavily towards a proper, specific, warranted link.

WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS. Epistemically, materially, for this round, and for debates on the topic at large.

On framing, I think the aff should have to defend their epistemic practices, but simultaneously that they get to weigh the impacts of the aff. The K is an indict on your scholarship, but a response includes challenging the K's epistemic practices, and extending/weighing your impacts through the round. Usually, whoever you impact author is didn't write an article on the end of the world for giggles, there's genuine warranting and reasoning that you can extend beyond the scholarship indict.

"Fiat is illusory" is a fact, not a claim. Explain why that should, or shouldn't matter.

K solves your impacts is not the same as a floating PIK. The PIK is the alt includes your plan. K solves your impacts is separate, and generally fair. Answer their alt. lmao.

Alt's should be THOROUGHLY explained. You can drop it and go for the K as a link DA, and that's how I evaluate any K with a "reject the aff" alt, but if you keep the alt, you should answer their offense in depth with a mix of evidence and explanation of the alt's telos. Alt shouldn't be a litany of buzzwords like "embrace the mestizo mentality" (NINA!), there should be an explanation about what that materially represents and why the ballot is key. Don't be shy in cross, aff or neg, question what you don't understand, and answer to the best of your capacity, don't be coy unless it's funny and appropriate.

K-Aff:

Most of the stuff from the K block applies. Give me a thorough explanation of your solvency mechanism, your links, and your impacts/theory of power. You should do this, preferably, in a shorter overview and more in well warranted lbl answers on the case flow. Bar for answering ballot isn't key, education is irrelevant, and already published is low, but there needs to be an answer. Ballot PIKs and Academy Ks on the K-aff are super strong, but there needs to be an impact and a distinction between an aff and neg ballot. I most likely won't vote on a one liner on case as an answer to the entire aff.

Death could be good. lmk.

The K-aff should very clearly challenge the educational practices of the resolution. You're rejecting a juridical reading of the resolution because it propagates a set of impacts and a system of oppression/exploitation in the research practices and discussions it generates. Instead, you're proposing a shift of the stasis point of the resolution, a shift in the reading of the resolution that allows the K-aff mechanism to be topical, so that the resolution's knowledge production avoids the violence you outlined. Use your 1ac links to the rez as answers to their interp on fw.

If you're K-aff is more complex, give me a meaty overview, or preferably, very meaty replies on the lbl. I won't vote on something that I can't explain back to you. Clearly grouping and organizing the debate helps with this greatly and will boost your speaks.

On fw, clearly explain why a juridical reading of the resolution is necessary and the only stable stasis point for knowledge production. Explain ways that the resolution can still produce the knowledge they advocate for without shifting research in a way you can't prepare for. Go for in round harms and for debate practices at large. TVA should be a full plan text, and should be warranted.. please don't say the TVA is "The USFG ought to burn itself down." Also, Interpretation should be clear, violation should be specific and linked to the interpretation, and the standards should be clearly linked to both.

LARP

Counterplans should have a solvency advocate. Multi-plank counterplans, PICs, qpq is all chill but I can be convinced otherwise. perms are a test of competition. should explain why severance is bad don't just name drop. Wakanda CP and things of that nature are cool but need to be well warranted, and need to be validated as a model of debate. Sentence theory in the 1ar is fine but if your going for it needs to be expanded on and most of the warranting should've been in the sentence.

DAs should have a clear link chain. Debate should collapse mainly to weighing impacts, ends up being a game of the risk of the aff and the risk of the DA, and you should explain it to me that way. Signpost when you're on the UQ, the link debate, and the impact debate, overview should be short and warranting should show up in the lbl. Pull out specific warrants in your own and the other teams cards and explain how they interact, to push me one way or the other on the risk debate.

Phil/Tricks:

don't know much about it. Open to anything, as long as its not blatantly abusive. Preferably phil is explained well, I won't vote on it if I don't understand it. Trix should be explained in cross when asked, or else your ethos tanks and its hard to buy after.

Cross:

If you're confused, ask. Good debates mean you're on the same page. Cross is binding and can be used as offense, to an extent. Ask leading questions, use evidence in your questions, pull out quotes from their cards, scrutinize their case and garner offense from their answers, or at least tank their ethos. As the person answering, answer clearly, and answer fully. You can be funny but don't be disrespectful, and answer their questions, or you're tanking your own ethos.

Bonus:

sage wins the TOC