Carter,+Alex

This is my paradigm.

I am a traditional judge.

Hello! I’m Alex Carter, I debated for four years at Palo Alto High School (class of ’12). I did both technical and persuasive debate. I am currently a senior at UC Berkeley and coaching Palo Alto. I think debate is the best thing ever. It is very smart.

**The Jist** I will judge the round based on what I hear you say, and I don’t care what arguments you make as long as they’re impacted to some framework, though “sick args” are preferred. There's nothing I categorically won't vote on, also don't ask me if there's anything I categorically won't vote on. Theory is not generally a sick arg. Don’t go crazy fast. Start slow, and please for the love of God weigh and compare your arguments, and crystallize. I admire innovative and interesting arguments. Those are the main things!

Be nice to your opponent. I've been seeing a lot of snark in rounds lately, and it is horrible! If you're clever or witty or just a goofball, you can steal CX time and make jokes and shit, but just being rude for the sake of being rude doesn't make any sense and makes you look dumb. I am serious about it making you look dumb! It makes you look dumb. I'll dock speaks for dumb.

My more complete paradigm is below. Don’t read it unless there’s something specific you’re worried about. I’m quite easygoing. Don’t be freaked out if you see that I don’t like some argument that you love to run. It’ll probably be fine.


 * 1) ** **All Arguments.** It is really, really important that you explain every argument you want me to vote on. That means claim, warrant, and impact. Impact includes all the argument’s implications and how it interacts with other args. You should also have a framework that explains what types of impacts are important! Good framework debate is my favorite type of debate to watch.


 * 2) ** **Truth.** Your args don’t have to be true, with the exception of arguments about what has happened in the round. For example, I will listen to really dumb impact scenarios as long as you warrant it with something, but I will essentially ignore you if you say false things about a previous speech, etc. I mean would you really expect me to listen to that?

On the subject of truth, I don't know what truth testing is. I actually don't know very much at all about debate terms like comparative worlds or competing interps. Please don't assume I know anything about those things. Also, I don't have a very clear idea of my preconceived notions in that respect. Perhaps because of that, I'm fairly malleable and willing to adopt some crazy worldviews if you ask me to.


 * 3) ** **Clarity (of arguments)**. I care a lot about clarity. I can’t stand arguments that are full of jargon and made-up words, even if they become crystal clear in the 2AR. I can’t stand arguments that don’t have obvious implications for the round. So if I can’t understand why I should be voting on something, I won’t vote on it. The same goes for arguments that morph into new arguments. Of course you can make cross-applications that aren’t quite the same as your original arg, but you should explain why you can do that. I’ll be very generous with trying to understand you, but don’t be ridiculous!


 * 3.5) ** A side-note about cross applications is that I won’t make them for you unless they're super obvious, do it yourself.


 * 4) ** **Clarity (of speaking)**. Please, please, please slow down for important things, and enunciate at all times. If I can’t understand you, I’ll say “clear” or “slow." If you don’t get clear or slow down, I won’t be angry or anything, but I will not catch all of your arguments, so don’t get all mad if I miss something crucial for you to win the round. Also I won’t call for cases after the round unless there’s a specific evidence dispute. I know that a lot of debaters rely on strategies where they say a lot of things very fast, but I am sticking to my guns on this one.


 * 5) ** **THEORY**. I think theory is shitty. There can be good, engaging theory debates but they’re rare. I will listen to you if you run theory, and I will not hate you, but be warned that I have a high threshold for voting on it. If you are responding to theory, your best bet is to go for something like reasonability, and to wax poetic about how you are not abusive enough to be dropped. I’m open to offensive responses to theory (RVI’s, turns, counterinterps, etc.) and they are great for beating back theory. But if you want me to actually vote for your RVI or something, I’ll hold it to the same (high) standard as the initial theory shell. So do a good job if that’s the route you choose. This is the place where I am most likely to be a bit interventionist. I will happily ignore the theory debate and look at substance if I don’t think theory is resolvable, so strategize carefully!


 * 6) ** **Extensions**. I don’t care about extensions very much, especially for time-crunched 1ARs. If something is dropped, just extending the tagline and impact is fine. If something is being contested, you should spend more time.


 * 7) ** **Pre-Fiat/Kritiks**. Personally, I’m not a huge fan of pre-fiat or kritik type arguments. They can be some of the coolest and most thought-provoking arguments out there, but I think they mostly end up sounding like dribble. That being said, I will of course listen to them and vote for them like anything else. Remember to have a framework if you are running such an arg. Also, if you run pre-fiat args, remember to not fall victim to the jargon issue explained in #3.


 * 8) ** **Speaker Points**. As far as speaker points go, my general belief is that they are how I express my approval or disapproval of your communication skills and your style of argumentation.

The following things will be good for your points: -MAKING MY DECISION FOR ME (short of signing the ballot yourself, I’m not into that) -Being entertaining (I award additional speaker points for effective incorporation of quotes from //The Big Lebowski//) (I also award speaker points for effective incorporation of Bane quotes in a Bane voice. Poor Bane impressions will result in deduction). -Being funny -Being dominant (without being rude) -Being polite -Being good at CX -Speaking clearly (see clarity (of speech)) -Being super organized in your speeches -Having a strategy and sticking to it -Having cool arguments -Being logical

The following things will be bad for your points: -Being rude, PLEASE DON’T BE RUDE it makes me very uncomfortable -Being too loud (in small rooms! in echo chambers!!) -Being too quiet (in huge rooms! with loud air conditioners!!) -Being overbearing -Making bad jokes, this also makes me very uncomfortable -Pretending to know me when I don’t know you -Lying -Being shady/wasting time in CX -Having horrible arguments -Getting heated -Being snarky -Laying down a bunch of frivolous theory shells -Being very fast and circuity against a much less experienced opponent who has no idea what’s going on. I find that very shitty. -Offending me -Being mean to me

These annoying ticks may also be bad for your points: -Stomping your feet quite loudly -Gasping a lot. Work on your lung capacity if you're able to. -Sounding like a mosquito

That is all, good luck!