Pregasen,+Mathew

I'm a 3rd year out now, went to Trinity Prep as a high schooler, and go to school at Columbia now. Got a bid sophomore year and then 6 bid rounds in a row senior year. Fun times. Also, work at this mathematical algorithm company I founded known as [|Parsegon]. Conflicts include Cambridge, Trinity Prep, Needham, and Chris Sun, whom has also achieved an incredible 2400 on the SAT.

Paradigm synthesis: I think diversity of judge paradigms in debate is what makes debate key to real world thinking. While my personal views have changed over time, and thus wish to intervene in certain contexts has increased, I will still abstain from any intervention as much as possible - keeping to "Tabula Rasa" in the strongest way possible. I wouldn't call myself a K or Theory judge - I think both have leveraged themselves often as "pre-fiat" like positions that just internally clash and ought to be weighed. If curious, in cases where K and theory do clash, my voting record is pretty much 50-50, maybe 60-40ish to theory in outrounds. This may be just a reflection of whom has historically preffed me since I was a theory debate in high school; but as a judge I don't think I have a predisposition either way.


 * My weirdest judge ideology from the mean**: in cases where I think **I had to intervene**, almost always due to a lack of weighing or a weird triggering of a layer, and thus one debater won on some intervention, I'll often make it a low-point win since the round was likely a technically coinflip depending on pre-dispositions past the usual paradigm.


 * Second weirdest judge ideology**: see the "Edit Post Princeton" block on competing interps. This is a bit more relevant.

So the rest of this paradigm below is a bit of a long hot mess but feel free to read it through. Been meaning to clean it up and hopefully soon will. Most are just very complicated pre-positions on very specific and complex situations that arise 5% of the time, and basically 0% of the time in good debate. Let me know if you have any questions.


 * Edit Post Princeton:** In the past, I have taken that competing interps implies that a lack of offense linked to a counter interp is sufficient to win on theory. Now, unless you specifically warrant in the 1NC/1AR/1AC why the conditions of competing interps requires an explicit counter interp (+ why offense opposed to terminal defense is necessary for such counter interp), I will assume that winning a terminal defense claim is sufficient since it links back to the implicit counter interp, ie the aff. So to speak, under counter interps, I will assume terminal defense to the theory shell is linked back to the counter interp: X interp is true in cases but this Aff. I feel like this view of debate is most consistent with how we deal with things like PICs and Perms and also don't think semantic args made in the 2NR/2AR like "they said no explicit counter interp" really make sense anymore in debate since the intersections between the kritikal layers and theory are so intertwined now. I also feel like if you read an interpretation with a violation from the AC, you are basically conceding to the fact that the AC conforms to some other internation that's within a singular set that doesn't intersect with the interpretation you read (this being inspired from my Discrete Math class).

I know this paradigm is a **bit of a mess** given I was being unorganized and inserted things all over. Will try to organize it for Bronx, basically your standard tabula rasa judge tho. The only one major addition for **Bronx, 2015** is that I believe that compilation time for putting all of your stuff in one document is prep time since it assists your delivery in your speech - this is also to check back debaters taking no prep time to compile documents and secretly adding more stuff to the file (I've had to deal with this, it is not fun). However, prep time does not have to be taken to plug in the flash drive, save it, and plug out, so only stop the timer right before you are saving the file directly into the flash drive. I know this is uber specific, but 10 minute compiling into one document practices need to end.

I will do my best to inform debaters of this policy at the beginning of the round, especially if I have judged them before implying they may have not checked this new rule.

For Apple Valley: I noticed a common question is what is my default on competing interps and reasonability. In short - it is infinitely best you just establish one and explain what that means. My default is somewhat nuanced. I have come to believe that competing interps is somewhat of a created norm of debate I am expressing, so I default to reasonability. That isn't to say I don't like competing interps - just make args why. When I say though that I default to reasonability, I do not mean the way reasonability is often expressed in the status quo of debate: that that interp doesn't have "reasonable abuse" to pull the trigger. I mean simply that you prove that one debater is less fair or less educational or less [insert voter] in round even if it isn't linked to an explicit interpretation - in short, that you have a warrant for why they are doing something bad, even if it isn't necessarily universalizable since i think the idea of rules having to be universalizable is an implication debaters need to make, not something I can assume. BUT if the internal warrant for the voter, say fairness, is something like "we need clear rules in debate to abide by" I personally see it fit the internal nuance of the voter implies how we evaluate it a la reasonability and or competing interps. Probably one of the most confusing paradigms on this default, so just simply make the argument without relying on this default, but it is something I've put a lot of thought into and felt there are certain incongruencies with having default like this (just like I can't inherently default whether Nuclear War or Dehumanization comes first for instance).

For Bronx Round Robin/Bronx: If something is labeled explicitly as a turn and is flat out conceded, I will vote for it as a turn even if you make a new argument to why it is defense since I think that that labeling is new and must done/weighed in the speech prior. That being said, I won't be happy speaks wise if you are clearly making defensive arguments and labeling them as turns for strategic purposes. This isn't a common problem but was a major issue in a round I judged earlier so wanted to clarify my position on that.

For Harvard/Future: Here are some things I think are probably abusive **but won't intervene against if the other debater tolerates it (and thus won't even dock speaks).** But I do think these are things that are theoretically unfair and should be called out with theory (if that is your thing, if it isn't -totally cool). This also means however you need to win the shell - I have no predisposed bias towards thinking these are true interps in terms of judging but think they are unsettlingly rare interps in debate.

__ 1) Clipping Cards - I know this is one that is tricky to prove a violation but I do think there is a serious harm to the activity given its prevalence. Hence, I will be ok with debaters interrupting a speech to show a clipping card violation BUT if they are wrong and just using this to interrupt the other speech, I may dock speech if you are too trigger happy with this. Seriously, only use it when there is a real violation ( you still need to win theory on this, this is just for the violation ). __

__ 2) Using CX to Prep - Honestly, using CX to Prep just seems like it hurts debaters that made clear advocacy that didn't require as many questions and therefore encourages confusing strategies to prevent using CX to Prep. Again, ok if both debaters are ok with it, but I would be open to hearing theory on this practice. __

Background: Debated for Trinity Preparatory School for 4 years in LD, earning a bid to the TOC in my sophomore year at Sunvite Semifinals and 6 bid rounds my senior year. Conflicts (Cambridge, Needham, Trinity Prep). I currently attend Columbia University

Tl;dr: I am open to pretty much any argument. This doesn't mean I like every argument. I give speaks based on mainly strategy and for good arguments. Clash is necessary. Topic debate is often sometime enjoyable to watch though I won't bias myself towards topic debate arguments. I also dock speaks for very very limited reasons and prefer rewarding debaters for good practices.

What isn't ok:

1) Ad hominem attacks are often disappointing. I won't intervene against them, but please don't make a "My author is from so and so which is better than so and so". I think the fact that debaters from smaller rural schools can still succeed on the debate circuit is a testament to why ad hominem attacks on background aren't too valid. 2) Anything that on face marginalizes other debaters in round. I am fine with hearing things like Util > Oppression, Extinction > Oppression, or even skepticism, or vice versa, for an argument is an argument, but please don't try to attack other debaters. I don't expect this to be a problem but just a disclaimer. 3) I will vote on a bad extension if it is [|dropped] and no argument is made against the extension being poorly executed, but for the sake of speaks, please please please please extend the warrants of the argument. Do you need to restate the card? Not by any means, though it is ok if you want to. But don't just be like "Extend Azbel" and then move on because I think that foster really bad [|clash]. 4) Speed is ok and clarity is nice. I was a debater that struggled during my first two years especially with clarity because of my accent, and I am sympathetic to the fact that debate is already unevenly structured based on how our vocal chords are arranged. I will say clear as many times as needed. I will say slow, louder etc. But please do not take this liberty to mean you can be unclear, because if I sense you aren't trying to change your clarity after saying clear, not only am I not getting arguments down, but I won't be very happy.

Otherwise, I try to be nice on speaks and give a constructive RFD if allowed. Debate is a learning process; I am often put off at how mad judges get at debaters over things they may hate: while I understand that a debater may break a paradigm and that may justifiably reflect in speaks, debate is in the end a paramount educational opportunity. In other words, if I am mad, then I think something really really bad went down.

The SPECIFICS

Theory/T - Fine. Unique voters are a plus, slow down for interps, and strategic theory is ok. If I sense though it is being used as a crutch, that really isn't strategic opposed to uncreative so try to maintain a fair balance. I love drop the argument theory, even if it is functioning in the [|shadow] of other shells, but I am absolutely fine and happy to hear drop the debater. I love unique implications of shells too: the binary of drop the argument and drop the debater I feel is often limiting.

Ks - Fine. When I debated, it may appear that I was disposed against kritikal positions but I think I have voted on them a fair share of rounds. Originally I was disposed to think that K's lacked a framework. This may still apply to certain K's that presume Utilitarian calculus and have to do things like Security etc. When it comes to arguments like Racism, Sexism etc., I would be really open to hear arguments on how such constructions function on the same level of theory in the way they impact debate. I always assumed that theory presumed Ks, but my mind has been changed that there are good arguments out there why the opposite can be true. Just the one pet peeve I have in mind is this: if you are reading a K and someone asks you "Why is Racism bad?," don't respond with "Wait you think it is good." There are millions of reasons Racism is bad, and to me, that's an easy question that should be answered. The [|reason] I especially don't like the previously mentioned response is that I think the reasons why Racism is bad according to a debater can imply other things are bad as well, other forms of oppression, ethical theories, etc. So in terms of consistency of argument interaction, don't make assumptions about the most general things. Make arguments.

Topic Debate - Solid.

In terms of speaks, take my philosophy like this: You can get a 30 by running theory, you can get a 30 by running theory + topic, or running a K, or running straight topic, or running a performance, or etc. etc. etc. But the easiest way you can get a 30 (amid how rare they may be) is by make [|stronger] nuanced and well researched arguments about the topic - if you demonstrate you are making true or logical arguments on the fly/extempted, that get's you major points. I think topic debate needs to return for the integrity of the activity in the long run, and making speaks easier for topic debate is the way I am going to try to hep achieve that. My speaks are very very very closely tied to strategy but also can be boosted if you are sincere to your style of debate (ie, if you read the role of the ballot is the liberation of X marginal group, sticking to your position throughout the debate can fare well for you. On the converse, you can maybe get a 30 if someone reads theory on your role of the ballot, and then you pull a surprise by kicking their butt on theory and reading an offensive interp on how their strategy violates their own standards of fairness, education, etc. Versatility is probably one of the biggest factors in how I see the strength of your strategy).

The way I see speaks. Inversely Exponential in either directions - 28~28.5 (depending on inflation per tourney) being average. 30s are rare but not as rare as some may hold them. If I dropped below 26, that's a serious sad face. :(

Please understand the arguments you are running and can summarize them succinctly in CX.

I am fine with questions after the round - always personally found post-rounds questions to be critical and constructive for improvement. Try not to argue. Remember that one debate won't change your life. It is the way you remember it that will. If you have any other questions, feel free to email them to me at mdp2163@columbia.edu, and I will answer them and add the answer to the paradigm if it wasn't addressed before.

NEW EDIT: When someone asks "why is this true" I prefer you don't respond with "There are a bunch of reasons, do you want me to go through all of them?" Answering questions with questions is a bit irksome, and this is a minor thing, but it does delay CX and I would prefer highly if you stayed away from this rhetorical strategy. Simply just go "There are 5 reasons, the first being.." etc.

I also often will be doing work during prep time (will pay attention for CX) and sometimes will have an earphone in listening to Progressive House or Trance or something (like the hidden song links in this paradigm) to help concentrate. If there is an out of CX concession that is made, please be sure I am knowledgable about it.