Roth,+Brandon


 * Critical/Preclusive Notes**

If I am judging you and the building is far away/you, for whatever reason, don't have enough time to read this, then just ask me before the round and I'll summarize it for you.

If asking me specific questions before the round would be more time efficient, comfortable, or helpful for you, then I’ll gladly do that as well/instead. If there’s something you need to know about my judging that is critical to how you wish to engage in the debate, in whatever way, then I will be as honest and forthcoming with that information as possible, and I hope that you will be comfortable with asking me any necessary questions.

The below paradigm only discusses LD, because that’s the event that I did most in high school and prefer to judge. However, anything within it that isn’t LD-specific applies to other events as well.


 * About Me – Geographical and Competitive History**

I debated for four years at Sprague High School (class of 2016) in Salem, Oregon. I began with Parli and Public Forum, but then switched to LD and debated both traditionally and on the national circuit for roughly 3 years from then on. I qualified to NSDA Nationals 3 times in LD, and earned 2nd Place in Extemporaneous Debate there my sophomore year, and 15th place in LD there my junior year. My senior year, I qualified to the TOC in LD and went 4-3.

I now do College Parli (NPDA) at Lewis & Clark College (class of 2020) in Portland, Oregon.


 * About Me – Argumentative History**

As I said, I debated both progressively and traditionally, so I’m familiar and comfortable with either style, or something entirely outside the traditional definitions of either.

I would hope that the types of arguments I have read/now read don’t have any influence on the way you wish to debate, or the ways that I am predisposed to adjudicate rounds, but for transparency’s sake, I’ll list them here.

I preferred to debate fast and technically. In LD I preferred thick philosophical frameworks, strict interpretations of those frameworks throughout the round, as well as my fair share of tricks. I didn’t really have a “pocket K” in high school, but I enjoyed reading Jungian Psychoanalysis, the Hierarchal Complexity Kritik that many have read in LD recently (perhaps best called “Oppression Weighing Bad”), Spivak, Neoliberalism, and some others. If you would like to see what I read at TOC my senior year to get a better idea of what I was like, feel free to look at my 2016 Circuitdebater page.

In College Parli I’ve branched out. I almost never cared much about LARPing (roleplaying as the government and loosely using a utilitarian/consequentialist calculus) in high school, but now I do. I’ve grown to really enjoy reading T/Theory, and I enjoyed debating the Elections DA until the Uniqueness came to a sad and surprising end recently. As for Ks, I’ve read Rancière and Welsh frequently.


 * My Broad Paradigm**

Because I think that Phil/FW debate is dying in LD, I’ll boost both sides’ speaks to reward engaging in an in-depth framework debate. An example would be Emotivism vs. Deontology.

I want to leave as much to you and the other debater as possible. I do not want to be selfish and try to impose my conceptions of debate on you. I'm judging because I like watching debate, not because I like only a certain kind of debate. Do whatever style best suites you and I will do my best to evaluate it according to how you tell me I should. Whether that's LARP, tricks, theory, performance, Ks, something brand new, something everyone else does, whatever it is; I want you to feel comfortable debating it in front of me.

I really want to be a low anxiety judge—I don't want you to have to change what you came into the tournament planning to do just because I'm your judge. I will strive to be understanding of you and other debaters.

Please be nice to each other in round. Also, please respect that loud noises stress me out and make me feel uncomfortable. Of course it’s impossible for you to know where that threshold is, so I won’t penalize you for it in any way, but it’s just something that I would like people to be mindful of.

I strictly prefer to let debaters figure things out for themselves. For example: I don’t think that I need to have a bias against “frivolous theory” because, if a shell is truly frivolous, then it should be easily beaten.

I really like when debaters tell me how they intend/believe their arguments function, because it reduces the likelihood of them being strawpersonned in round, and reduces the likelihood of intervention quite a bit.


 * Defaults**

The presence of //nearly any// argument in the round that has bearing on a paradigmatic issue means that I will abandon my search for an appropriate default and use that argument to frame my evaluation of offense. (I say “nearly any” because it’s a question of whether such an argument has bearing on that paradigm. “Util Good” may be a reason to prefer comparative worlds, but the fact that the sky is blue likely doesn’t imply truth testing, for example. My tolerance for my own intervention is so low, however, that I would like a response to such supposedly-frivolous arguments nonetheless.)

I don’t really have a set of things that I could call defaults. What I would be inclined to default to is context sensitive and depends on what exactly happens in the round. If both debaters assume/agree to Util, but don’t justify a comparative worlds paradigm, (over truth testing, offense-defense, best justification, etc.) of course I’ll default to comparative worlds. I prefer that things like that are justified though, particularly if there is a conflict and it matters, such as the common case of one debater truth testing and one comparing worlds.

Please justify the paradigm for evaluating theory, such as competing interpretations or reasonability. Reasonability scares me a bit because I don’t like the idea of me “gut checking” things, so if you win that reasonability is the best theory paradigm, then please clarify it further. Establishing a ‘brightline’ for reasonability would help everyone understand, engage, and evaluate your arguments on theory that depend on it.

If I had to default between competing interps and reasonability, I would choose the way that has the least direct causal impact on my evaluation of the round. **This method of defaulting is one that I will attempt to use on other paradigmatic issues as well.** Essentially, if someone seems to be winning theory for the most part, and competing interpretations and reasonability aren’t debated at all, then I’ll default to whichever prevents me from having to undermine and circumvent that debater’s winning of theory. If that’s too difficult for me to do, then I’ll default to competing interps and weigh offense and defense between either explicit or implicit interps on the theory debate.


 * Conduct**

Please be quiet and respectful during prep time so that other debaters can focus.

If I am on a panel, I will not talk to other judges unless I feel that it is absolutely necessary and critical to the round/tournament/somebody’s wellbeing. If not, I feel that judges talking to each other during a debate round, especially a high-stakes outround, is distracting and disrespectful to some debaters, and I want people to be able to focus.

If some aspect of my behavior is distracting, or makes you feel uncomfortable, please let me know in any way that you feel comfortable doing so. However, the burden is on me as a judge, not you, and I recognize that.

If you can avoid doing so, please don’t click your pens, drum on the table, etc. during your opponent’s prep time/speech time. Again, this isn’t something that I can justify penalizing anyone for because I don’t know whether or not such mannerisms are things that people have control over. It is just a preference of mine.


 * Arguments in General**

In general, I will vote on anything. Tech over truth. However, having truth on your side makes the ‘tech’ easier, and I believe that that is a powerful check against arguments that should not win rounds.

Of course, I will not sign my ballot in favor of arguments such as “racism good,” and the like.

Other than that, I don’t have a preference for some arguments over others. I don’t want to be dogmatic, and attempting to appeal to my intuitions/background as a debater isn’t persuasive to me.

I think that what counts as ‘offense’ or an ‘argument’ varies greatly, and that arguments come in many forms through a variety of different avenues and mediums. For me, debate in high school would’ve been much more fun and enjoyable if my judges were more open minded, so I want to give that to you.


 * Speaking**

As someone who always has a very dry mouth/has a hard time swallowing/is frequently sick, I’m not a stickler for clarity. **According to Sarah McDonagh, I’m a “throatboi.”** I don’t listen to card texts very carefully in constructives because, if my job is to listen to and clearly understand the card text, then tags are redundant. I’ll call for cards if asked, but I’ll go by tags/analytics/extensions if not regardless, because these are the actual arguments made by debaters.

If there is something that will impact your ability to present your arguments, (dry mouth, effects of medication, braces, injury, disability, etc.) let me know, as my wish is to accommodate you as best as I can. I would hate to put you at a competitive disadvantage. If you feel it is necessary, I can flow your speech off of a flash/email of your speech doc. Otherwise, I only ask that you try your absolute best to be slow and clear on tags and analytics.

Please repeat theory interpretations, role of the ballot/judge texts, advocacy/plan/counterplan/alt texts, and anything else of that nature after you read them, or read them quite slowly once. I really need to have them down semi-correctly in order to evaluate them.

If you need to pause your time to take a drink of water or something like that, that’s totally cool. It’ll help your clarity and your comfort so I think that it’s conducive to everything. Just please don’t use this as a way to steal prep, I trust that you won’t.

I don’t consider this to be allowing prep during a speech, because every time I take a drink of something I’m thinking “don’t spill don’t spill don’t spill” in my head anyway.


 * Please differentiate hella between the end of a card/argument and the beginning of the next.**

I'll say “clear” or “slow” as many times as I need to. I don’t want to be rude and just give up on flowing you after a certain number of times. As long as you’re making a clear effort to be clear and slow enough for myself and others, that is good enough for me. If you slow down on tags, texts, and analytics, and differentiate between the beginnings and ends of arguments, that makes up for higher speed and less clarity elsewhere.

I won’t penalize speaks for speaking issues – I decide them based on a variety of factors. They’re inevitably arbitrary, but this eliminates at least one fairly arbitrary factor from the mix, and any penalization (whether deserved or not, unfortunately) for speaking comes in the form of me missing arguments anyway. I see no reason to add to that by penalizing speaks.

I think that I am, and I do strive to be, more generous on speaks than other judges. That is my method of approaching how arbitrary they are. As a first-year-out, I’m not really sure what my average will be, but I’m guessing it will be around 28.9.


 * Card Calling**

I will call cards for the purpose of evaluating the round only if and when I’m asked to. I think it’d be intervention to do so otherwise. Just saying, “Broth, their evidence is terrible on this question,” isn’t sufficient to warrant me calling for it or ignoring it. I know that you’re pressed for time, so just a simple “their evidence is tagged as this but doesn’t make a causal claim/have a warrant about it,” is sufficient.

I may call for something if I’m curious, but that won’t affect the round. Even if the evidence that I call for in these instances isn’t very good, (by my conception of what that means) I won’t let that effect the way in which I evaluate it because of that. I’ll still treat the tag, or the explicated implications of that card, as being true. An argument about it would have needed to have been made.


 * Extensions**

I would say that I have a low threshold for extensions compared to other judges. If something is conceded, I don’t need you to very thoroughly rehash the warrant, and would rather hear “big picture”/more line by line/implication work instead. This is because that (a) tells me why that thing being true and extended matters, and (b) helps me evaluate the round a lot better.


 * Prep**

Flashing/emailing is not prep, but making a speech doc is.

If you have computer problems, let me know and show me, and you can pause your prep.

Flex prep is fine if both debaters agree that it is.