Parente,+Francesca

I debated one year of novice policy and three years of varsity LD for Wayzata High School in Minnesota. I attended the TOC in 2009. As of Fall 2013, I am a graduate student in political science at UCLA.

My involvement in debate has declined dramatically since graduating high school. I don’t attend many tournaments. Consequently, that means that I don’t judge very often. When I debated, I could keep up with anything, but since I’ve been out of the activity, I am less used to listening to your machine gun speed. Fast debate is good, but lightning speed debate is not. You should probably aim for the 6-7 range (out of 10) if you are clear. Good fast debate is still better than good slow debate. I’ll yell clear. I might also yell "slow down" if "clear" doesn't seem to be working. You know you're in trouble if I stop typing. I reward debaters who pay attention to their judge. I tend to be more of an expressive judge than not. I'm not going to nod excessively, but I will indicate if you should move on.

In general, I want debate to be **about the topic**. Non-topical arguments include theory, skeptical arguments that could be run on any resolution (i.e. justice/morality doesn't exist), and performance arguments (i.e. arguments about some marginalized group in the debate community). My experience is that the best/most enjoyable rounds to watch and/or judge are ones about the topic. Judging theory is painful. Judging a BAD theory debate is excruciating.

That being said, I don't want to intervene. I'm not going to automatically vote you down for running these arguments, but I am much more comfortable evaluating the round on the resolution.You're running these arguments at your own risk (in terms of loss/speaker points). I can evaluate these arguments, I just really don't want to. Please don't make me.


 * Other things you want to know: **

Read critical philosophy at your own risk. Heidegger barely makes sense when I read it slowly; how do you expect anyone to comprehend it at top speed?

I think pre-standards arguments are silly because there's rarely a reason for them to be pre-standard. I also think you sound even sillier when you call them "a prioris"

I don't want to call cards. It's become a crutch for debaters to be less clear and sloppy. You want me to do as little work as possible. I'm not interested in making your arguments for you. I'll call a card if there's serious dispute over the text. Don't tell me to call a card and read the warrants after the round; read/explain the warrants to me yourself.


 * How to win my ballot (and earn 28+ speaks):** Make smart arguments; make explicit comparisons between arguments and cards; clearly impact all arguments back to some evaluative standard (burden/criterion/standard); weigh arguments comparatively (don’t just say I outweigh on timeframe, tell me why that matters more than the fact they’re outweighing on magnitude)

In general, I want to see **smart debate**. The best debaters are ones who understand how arguments interact with other arguments on the flow. Don't lose the forest for the trees.


 * How to lose my ballot:** Failure to be comparative, forcing some form of intervention; miscutting evidence and being called out on it; using uniqueness cards that are severely outdated or postdated; being such an asshole that I will look for any possible way to vote against you


 * Arguments I have a higher threshold for voting on:** Potential abuse theory (I like theory to be about real abuse only); disclosure theory; RVI; any activist position, especially if your ballot story hinges on my personal decision in this round; anything not about the topic


 * Arguments that will earn you lower speaker points if I have to vote on them:** Any kind of skepticism, generic K’s of the resolution (justice/morality doesn’t exist); determinism; pre-standards arguments; presumption arguments; unnecessary theory (the only way you’ll win this is if your opponent drops it); any generic argument that doesn’t demonstrate you actually researched this topic.


 * Arguments that will earn you L 20 if you run them:** racism good, sexism good, genocide good, any bad-ism good; anything else that I find offensive and I reserve the right to call you out on an extremely offensive argument not listed here. What we say in round DOES matter. You're a person first and a debater second and I want you to remember that.


 * Speaker Points:** I start at 27 and move up or down from there. You will get a 28 if I think you are good enough at debate to break. You will get above that if I think you performed spectacularly in round and did everything or nearly everything perfectly. You will get 26-27 if I think you still have some/many areas that need improvement. You will get below a 26 if the round was bad. Remember that I will also dock speaker points for running arguments that I hate and forcing me to vote on them, regardless of how competent you are.

P.S. I was a Classics major as an undergrad. Look up the definition of “a priori” before coming into round and use it appropriately. Your bastardization of Latin makes Kant cry.