Kadie,+Tom

I did two years of circuit LD at Miramonte High School and graduated in 2015. I now attend UC Berkeley. I will be working at VBI and NSD this summer.

I have no desire to impose my own views upon the debate round. In deciding the round, I will strive to be as objective as possible. Some people have noted that objectivity can be difficult, but this has never seemed like a reason that judges shouldn't strive to be objective. I, overwhelmingly, prefer that you debate in the style that you are most comfortable with and believe that you are best at. I would prefer a good K or util debate to a bad theory or framework debate anyday. That's the short version--here are some specifics if you're interested.

Also:
 * Absent weighing on any particular layer, I default to weighing based on strength of link.
 * I probably won't cover everything so feel free to ask me questions.
 * Taken from Ben Koh because this makes sense: "If I sit and you are the winner (that is, the other 2 judges voted for you), and would like to ask me extensive questions, I will ask that you let the other RFDs be given and then let the opponent leave before asking me more questions. I'm fine answering questions, but just to be fair the other people in the room should be allowed to leave."
 * I've decided to have a rule where if you agree to use prep for flashing, you get 2 extra minutes of prep.

Delivery and speaks:
 * Fine with speed.
 * I'm not the greatest at flowing, so try to be clear about where an argument was made.
 * High speaks for good strategic choices and innovative arguments. I will say clear as much as necessary and I won't penalize speaks for clarity.

Frameworks:
 * I default to being epistemically conservative, but will accept arguments for epistemic modesty if they are advanced and won.
 * I am willing to support any framework given that it is won on the flow.
 * I'm willing to vote for permissibility or presumption triggers. However, there must be some implicit or explicit defense of a truth-testing paradigm. The argument must also be clear the first time that it is read. If the argument is advanced for the first time in the 1AR and I think that it is new, I will allow new 2NR responses.
 * Many framework debates are difficult to adjudicate because debaters fail to weigh between different metastandards on the framework debate. For example, if util meets actor-specificity better, but Kantianism is derived from a superior metaethic, is the actor-specificity argument or the metaethic more important?

Theory and T:
 * I default to no RVI, drop the argument on most theory and drop the debater on T, competing interpretations, and fairness and education not being voters. Most of these defaults rarely matter because debaters make arguments.
 * I don't think that competing interps means anything besides a risk of offense model for the adjudication of theory. That means, for example, that debaters need to justify why their opponent must have an explicit counter-interpretation in the first speech.
 * I, paradigmatically, won't vote on 2AR theory.
 * I'm willing to vote on metatheory. I probably err slightly in favor of the metatheory bad arguments such as infinite regress.
 * I'm willing to vote on disclosure theory.
 * Fine with frivolous theory.

Utilz:
 * I default to believing in durable fiat.
 * Debaters should work on pointing out missing internal links in most extinction scenarios.
 * I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.
 * I probably err aff on issues of counter-plan competition.
 * Err towards the view that uniqueness controls the direction of the link. However, I'm willing to accept arguments about why the link is more important.
 * I will evaluate 1ar add-ons and 2nr counter-plans against these add-ons. This is irrelevant in most debates.

K's:
 * There are many different kinds of kritikal argumentation so feel free to ask questions in round.
 * I'm unsure whether I should default to role of the ballot arguments coming before ethical frameworks. I personally believe that ethical arguments engage important assumptions made by many ROB arguments. However, community consensus is that ROB's come first so I will usually stick with that assumption if no argument is made either way.
 * I default to fairness impacts coming before theory, but I'm willing to evaluate arguments to the contrary.
 * I don't have strong objections to non-topical positions. However, I believe debaters should probably engage in practices like disclosure that improve the theoretical legitimacy of their practices.
 * Willing to vote on Kritikal RVI's/impact turns to theory.
 * I'm willing to listen to arguments that there shouldn't be perms in method debates. However, I find these arguments not very persuasive.

Note for HS Parli:

Everything above applies. Except for the stuff about prep time. The only parli specific issue is that I will listen to theory arguments that it is permissible to split the block. Feel free to ask me any questions.