Berlin,+Will

I’m a Sophomore at Harvard-Westlake high School in LA. I have debated on the national circuit in varsity for two years. This is my fourth year of debate, having participated in MSPDP and LD. I don’t fancy myself particularly “good”, but my friends assure me I’m decent so I guess I have that going for me. My views are unsurprisingly remotely similar to those of my coaches (Mike Bietz, Travis Fife, Scott Phillips, Shania Hunt).


 * How I Debate:**


 * I read Util, Das, CPs and T**. There will occasional be a K, but if so it will be a more standard generic like cap than something off the wall. Obviously, this is the kind of debate I will be most comfortable judging, and will likely judge best. This doesn’t mean I am unable or unwilling to judge a different position, but it may not be the most strategic decision. I'm decent at Theory and Ks and will definitely vote off them.


 * Speed:**

I will mostly be judging novice debates, so I don’t expect anyone particularly fast, or clear for that matter. I am fine with speed. I will say “clear” as necessary, and will do that multiple times. As a debater, I think it is stupid for judges to say they will yell clear once and stop listening afterwards. **If you can spread and your opponent is unable to or uncomfortable, it is required that you provide them a copy of the speech while you read. This can be via email (preferable), flash drive (less desirable), or, sadly, paper (the worst option, but acceptable).**


 * T and Theory:**

Don’t get me wrong. I love T and theory is pretty fine too. But I’m judging novice debates. Debaters should learn how to debate substance first. I will be skeptical of theory shells in novice rounds, unless the opponent is being legitimately unfair, and you can’t actually do anything. This is especially true if they are prepared to answer. If you and your opponent want to engage in a theory debate, that’s fine I guess, but if they simply can’t respond that’s unacceptable. But the slew of awful theory shells are educational and boring. I reserve the right to not vote on those shells.


 * Positions I dislike: (In no order)**


 * 1) **ILAW.** ILaw is the worst argument in all of debate. Period. If you read ILaw, I will let the round proceed in the interest of education but will give you an L 20. ILaw is stupid because it fundamentally should only say one thing excluding the other side's offense. And if it says something else that just proves its bad. Also no one ever listens to it. Do yourself and debate a favor. Do not read ILaw.
 * 2) **Kant and other phil agrs.** Not only do I barely understand Kant and other kinds of phil, but I simply hate it. I will vote off it if I think you win, but will be easily swayed against. Tread with caution.
 * 3) **K’s with stupid alts.** I will definitely vote on lots of K’s through a wide spectrum of topics if well explained, but if there is one thing I hate its stupid alts. Examples include alt texts that are filled to the brim with vocabulary from one book that says nothing, or an action that really wouldn’t do anything concrete.
 * 4) **Skep, Permissibility, Truth Testing, Nibs, Triggers, Spikes, A Prioris and anything of the like**. Tricks are for kids. If you read Nibs, you have to bring a bag of chocolate Nibs. I will not eat them, but will throw the bag at you if you extend it. I hate these position as the devalue debate as an educational activity. The only reason to read these positions is to try to trick your opponent. If you read these, prepare for atrocious speaks. If I’m particularly displeased with the round, I.E. your novice opponent had no clue what was going on, I may simply not vote on these positions.


 * Final Motivational Thoughts That Every Paradigm Has:**

Debate is about having fun primarily … blah blah blah… be sure to have fun… blah blah blah… be fair and nice if you want better speaks and my favor … blah blah blah… I want both debaters to learn … blah blah blah.

Also no need to be scared of me because I’m the judge, I’m a high school debater too, I deserve limited respect, none without a ballot.