Rubin,+Mai

If you have any questions, my email is rubinmai@gmail.com


 * LD Paradigm, PF paradigm is below this **

Background

I debated in PF for three years in high school, although I frequently worked with and judged the practice rounds of my school’s LD team. Those rounds include spreading, progressive arguments, and other such norms within circuit LD. Additionally, I did policy once in high school and currently do college policy for FSU. Although I am not as experienced as a seasoned veteran of the LD or policy circuit, I would like to think my understanding and experience regarding the norms of circuit LD is sufficient to be a decent judge. That said, do not assume I am super understanding of every nuance in the round. I am still new to these many norms, so keep that in mind when debating in front of me. If you’re rushing to read this right before a round starts, the most important sections of my paradigm are the paragraph after this one and the sections on condo, theory, the first sentence of misc., the first sentence and last paragraph in the general round evaluation section, and framework because most other parts of my paradigm are just explaining things that are largely circuit norms for the sake of being thorough. If you’re considering reading a narrative, I strongly suggest you read that section of my paradigm as well.

As an aside, I prefer not to restrict what debaters are best at for the most part. If you prefer K debate, framework debate, policy debate, etc., then please do what you are most comfortable with. Debate how you wanna debate in front of me. If you wanna go traditional, go traditional. If you wanna go tech, then go tech.

//**PLEASE DO A DECENT PAUSE WHEN SWITCHING BETWEEN OFFS SO I CAN SWITCH TO A DIFFERENT SPREADSHEET ON MY LAPTOP**//

Speed

I’m good with speed so long as it’s clear, and I can understand spread. That being said, the threshold for what I consider to be clear spread is higher than your average circuit judge, which might hurt you when I’m flowing. The safest approach towards me would be to speak a little slower. Still feel free to read those technical and progressive arguments, just do so more slowly so I can get your arguments down and adjudicate the round to the best of my ability. That said, if you’re confident you can spread both fast and clearly, go ahead and I will be fine with it. Please do not as if I am gonna be peeved if you spread, just be mindful of clarity in speaking. There is a limit to how fast I can flow, however, so please either go through the effort of frontloading or slow down a bit and it will help me out a lot with getting your args down. Slow on tags and authors. One quirk of mine is that I also like debaters to slow on layering just because it is //**critically**// important to the evaluation of the round, so please keep that in mind when reading offs. A frequent reiteration of that layering and the warrant for it would also help. In terms of theory, T, and Ks, slow when signposting that you're about to go to a different component, i.e., slow down during a theory shell when you're saying "A is the interp," or "B is the violation," etc.

General Round Evaluation

I evaluate the round under an offense/defense paradigm in a vacuum, or tabula rasa as most who are well versed in the circuit would call it. If you're aware of what that is, feel free to skip to the last two sentences of this paragraph and read on from there. As far as I’m concerned, I know nothing beyond what is in the room. The only instincts of my own I apply to my judging are the intrinsic ideals that death is bad, happiness is good, and I need to learn how to survive. In accordance with this, absent a framework, I default to util true and oppression bad. As I judge in a vacuum, I can and will be persuaded by alternative frameworks if warranted and explained properly. Pretty open to any argument as a result, with the sole exception of conditionality in certain circumstances (See the conditionality section). Even then, flash your cases if you’re spreading or I will be VERY unhappy. I will probably drop you if a fairness argument is made because of that.

All of that being said, in my experience and in the interest of full disclosure, I tend to more easily both grasp and invest myself into either K debates or policy debates based upon my prior experiences in both of those than other debates. Make of that what you will.

Overall, just give me a cohesive story of what happens when I sign my ballot. If you explain what happens in an aff or neg world, then you’ll have a much easier way to my ballot. Impact analysis is king and should constitute a significant portion of every speech from the NC onward so I have a clear idea of what I’m signing my ballot for after the 2AR ends.

Misc.

Give trigger warnings at the top of the AC if you are dealing with a subject that makes such a warning necessary. If you don’t, and you trigger someone, I will drop you automatically and give you 0 speaks.

GIVE ME WARRANTS OR I WILL NOT EVALUATE YOUR ARGUMENTS.

If you do not weigh, I will have to intervene, and you really don’t want me to do that. Even if you win, don’t expect high speaks. YOU MUST WEIGH IF YOU WANT ME TO VOTE FOR YOU.

Conditionality

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Aff must unconditionally defend the plan. Neg must unconditionally defend the CP. That said, in accordance to being tabula rasa, I don’t drop conditional arguments unless directly pointed out in round and responded to, i.e. by theory shell or even just being like “yo, that doesn’t work.” That said, pointing out that kind of thing when they kick conditional advocacies and doing nothing more than that doesn’t constitute a voter. To me, that just counts as burdening the culprit to defend their advocacies and not kick them, meaning it does NOT constitute any “drop the debater” fairness argument to me. It would if you run a “drop the debater” shell.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 20pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Narratives

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">So long as they have trigger warnings, I’m okay with narratives. Just give me a clear and cohesive warrant as to how and why this impacts the ballot and make sure that this link to the ballot is as clear, repeated, and well-explained as humanly possibly so that it sticks out in my mind when looking to the flow.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 20pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Theory

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">I love theory from the bottom of my heart. I find it to be ridiculously entertaining. I will give high speaks for a good theory debate. If the theory debate is not good, expect no higher than a 27 from me. Extend your links to the standard or else I’m considering the standard conceded. Seen way too many instances of that particular mistake, so this is my way of penalizing it.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">I admit to having a bias against disclosure theory, since I dislike the idea of not thinking on your feet and I think it makes for a less fun and educational debate. I also think it disadvantages small schools, granting disproportionate advantages to big schools with lots of coaches for prepouts and perpetuating circuit inequity. That said, in accordance to being tabula rasa, I’ll still evaluate disclosure theory, but I won’t give high speaks for it.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 20pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Topicality

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">I appreciate good topicality shells. If you’re somehow gonna go for a drop the debater on this, I don’t get how because T is typically drop the arg only. But if you do, it needs to be creative, or else I will most likely be subtracting quite a lot of your speaks. If you pull it off though, I’ll probably be pretty impressed, and give you some pretty OP speaks.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 20pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Framework

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Framework debates have a tendency to get very convoluted and lack clarity in their resolutions. At this point it becomes harder for me to understand what exactly is going on in the framework debate as all I have in front of me is a ton of ink without any explanation as to what it all means. My preferences regarding framework debate are as follows:
 * 1) <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">The framework is clearly boiled down and explained in a concise fashion. Crystallize clearly and as simply as possible why the ink on that part of my flow works out in your favor to let you either access the framework or refute it. Obvious possible exceptions include when both debaters attempt to link into the same framework.
 * 2) <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Accessing framework alone doesn’t win you the round, it just makes your method of evaluating offense the prime one. You need to say how your offense links into that framework sufficiently to get my ballot. The sole exception is a framework that explicitly says that accessing it alone wins the round with strong warranting. I have seen this become an issue enough that I feel the need to talk about it here. **//It is infinitely more important to me that you contextualize your framework and the arguments it links to in the bigger picture of the round in lieu of going extremely hard on tech.//**
 * 3) <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Those who read framework must give clear answers to any arguments regarding the limits of those frameworks. That’s my big jumping off point for framework clarity, because then even the best weighing analysis lacks much credence due to fitting into a framework of nebulous relevance next to other arguments in the round.
 * 4) <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">The framework should clearly link to some type of pre-fiat or post-fiat impact in the round that at least one debater says merits addressing, i.e. aff reads a framework with a clear link to advantages. Pre-fiat frameworks are fine and I like them, but I am a real sucker for post-fiat impact-based frameworks. Do not feel pressured towards one or the other, however. You do you in this regard, it won’t make a noteworthy difference.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 20pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Kritiks

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Ks need a clearly explained link with decent emphasis in the round. I tend to more easily understand //relatively// standard and straightforward kritikal literature by authors like Foucault as opposed to deeply abstract and difficult to explain authors like Deleuze and Guattari. Make of that what you will. I like Ks and they are the arguments I enjoy the most in policy/LD aside from policy-style arguments.


 * <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 20pt; vertical-align: baseline;">PF Paradigm **

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Updated as of Sunvite 2018. Sweeping changes done to make the paradigm more concise.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Hello. I did PF for three years, and I consider myself a relatively decent debater. I’ve been around the national circuit, so I’ve seen my fair share of debating. These days, I debate in college policy, so I’ve grown more acquainted with progressive arguments. That said, I am new to college policy, so do not expect me to have the same level of understanding of policy norms as an experienced policy debater as I am still learning the ropes of that myself.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">I disclose, so if you have any questions about the round, be it the specifics of the flow or your performance as a speaker, feel free to ask me either during the disclosure or after the round if time permits on my part. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to either ask me in person or email me at rubinmai@gmail.com. If you're in a rush to read this before a round, read the general round evaluation, link turns vs. DAs, and miscellaneous sections. Now onto specifics.


 * <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">General Round Evaluation **

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">For the most part, I am your standard flow judge. I only evaluate the round based on what was said in it so please do not expect me to do any work for you. Give a lot of big picture analysis and weigh so that I get a clear look at what an aff/neg world looks like. I feel the need to emphasize that because I’ve barely seen any weighing in the rounds I have judged this year. Please boil down the debate to a few key voting issues that are weighed and well-explained, going for everything tends to make my flow much more muddled because minimal time is given to fleshing out extensions. Please do not eschew weighing in favor of going for defense with a risk of offense. Those rounds get extremely muddled, and that approach is just very risky and makes it easy for slight biases to affect the decision. If you say something blatantly discriminatory with unambiguous malice, I am giving you a loss with 0 speaks.


 * <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Progressive Arguments **

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">I like progressive arguments, but if you read them, format them properly. For example, if you read paragraph theory as opposed to the formal theory shell of “A is the interp, B is the violation, C is the standard, D is the voter,” I will not be happy. If you do not know these structures and want to read these arguments in front of me, please educate yourself how to do so before the round begins. Likewise, the warranting and link story needs to be extremely clear. Blippy extensions will hurt you more than anything else when it comes to this.


 * <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Speaks **

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">The best adaptation to my paradigm breeds the best speaks. Additionally, I love good humor.


 * <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Link Turns vs. Disadvantages **

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">If your link turn links into the same impact as the contention it’s turning, then you’re fine and keep doing you, just access the turn to win. If your link turn is predicated on linking the turn to a different impact from the argument you are responding to, then it isn’t a link turn, it is a disadvantage/DA, and you must weigh the impact of the DA as you would any case impact. Please signpost a DA as being a DA, and I am indifferent whether you read it off case or on the opponent's side of the flow like you would read a turn. If the former, please signpost it as an off case argument in the OTR. I don't evaluate DAs as defense if not extended in summary.


 * <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Miscellaneous **

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">If you're gonna read an overview, you must tell me what side of the flow to put it on in your off time roadmap.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">I don’t require the first speaking team to extend defense against the other team’s case through first speaking summary.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">I don’t require a split of responses to your opponent’s case and frontlining your own case in second speaking rebuttal.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">I know how to spread and I understand it, which means I’m fine with understanding speedier speeches in PF. However, you must let me know before a speech if you intend to go beyond simply speaking fast and are going to outright spread. Also, if you plan to spread something off a speech doc, please be prepared to flash that speech doc to your opponents.


 * <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Pet Peeves **

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Don't say they drop an argument if they didn't. I flow the round, I am not fooled by extensions through ink. I see this more often than I should.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Dominance in CX, especially grand, does NOT equal cutting off and talking over your opponents.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Saying "we outweigh" without explaining why.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Asking someone what their evidence for something is in CX. No, they probably read evidence, you should just question the merits of it and its logic in CX instead.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Trying to kick out of a concession that hurts you in retrospect. What you say is binding. You don't get to magically change what you said unless there was a genuine misinterpretation of what was said, because that is extremely abusive. It's not gonna work for you to change a "yes" to a "no," for instance.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Lastly and by far most importantly, have fun! Debate isn't all about competition and winning, it's about enjoying yourself. Please do so!