Bearfoot,+Sheelah+M.

Hi there! Here's how you can get my ballot in a round.

Note, there's two on here, one for HS LD and one for NPDA Parli, I'm pasting them together so that both are in one location for ease of access.

HS LD > **5B)** There are a couple specific K's that I have more strict criteria for. **Nietzsche**: Please for the love of all that is good in the world, don't run a Nietzsche K in front of me unless you have actually **//read//** some Nietzsche. All the bastardized embrace suffering stuff I hear all the time is not Nietzsche. > **Give Back the Land:** This can either be done really well or really poorly. A lot of the time, running this is pretty much just commodifying the suffering and exploitation and genocide of hundreds of Peoples for the ballot in a round. Please don't be one of those teams or I will drop you. If you are running this case without any cards from Native authors, that is a serious paternalistic problem. It's also hard when the "plans" proposed don't leave room for biracial Native Americans, especially considering we have the highest "out-marriage" rates of any ethnicity. If you are running this case to help rhetorically overthrow colonialist power structures and are actually representing Native voices, then you belong on the other half of the equation are running this case for the right reasons. **Speed K's:** Just have solid reasons for why your opponent spreading is abelist or exclusionary. Get specific about the impacts of that exclusion. If you have a disability that makes spreading either impossible for you to perform yourself or listen to/flow and your opponent still spreads, then yes absolutely run a speed K. Otherwise, I don't think there are that many instances where speed K's are warranted. **5C) Narratives:** Hell. Yes. I strongly believe narrative debate has an important role in asserting the voices of marginalized groups into academia. These are experiences and perspectives that the overwhelmingly wealthy white able cis/het male institutions of academia have isolated- a lot of the time, it can be incredibly hard to find other authors publishing work on topics that relate to these experiences.. Narratives are NOT whining- narrative debate is a way for the debater to become a producer of knowledge. Talking about structural violence with first person language does not make these topics any less academic; somebody else does not need to study you for your problems to be worthy of being heard and debated. > That being said, please don't let the round turn into the Oppression Olympics. Don't let your args devolve into "I am more oppressed" - narratives are to highlight structural violence, it's not personal. It is not about you, the debater running a narrative is an empiric to a larger argument that highlights particular systems of power. We shouldn't have to pretend like these systems don't apply to us in some way when we run cases,and at the end of the day, nobody is attacking YOU, they are indicting particular systems of power. Engage with the power structures in the round.
 * 1) **Don't "Drop it like it's hot"! ** I'm a tabula rasa, flow judge, so if Aff says "nuclear war is good" with some evidence to back it up, and Neg doesn't refute it, as long as Aff doesn't drop it and makes it a voting issue in the last speech, it's a voting issue. On that same line, I won't extend or X-App for you, so PLEASE signpost and roadmap clearly. I don't time roadmaps.
 * 2) **Use your head! Analysis: ** I'm a flow judge, yes, but please don't run cards that are essentially claims without warrants, they hurt your speaker points (once had a kid literally say "Environmental protection leads to the dissemination of humanity." and when asked how by the Aff in CX, he replied "the card just says it does") Explain their significance. "Blippy" refutations that are claims without warrants don't hold weight in the round-- not that I will intervene and disregard your argument (I am very against judge intervention, unless you're winning the "judge's role in the round is to be a critical intellectual" arg) but when a refutation is blippy, it normally only defeats a negligible portion of a contention or subpoint and that's what I will be flowing it against, not the //entire// contention 2 or XYZ Card (as long as your opponent calls you out on it). Really make sure you do a lot of work on weighing analysis and impacts, break things down into "comparative worlds". This is especially important if you have tight or interesting Value/Value Criterion framework (which would make me very happy) and you need to make the choice between defending it or going after the contentional debate. I don't care which one you pick, go with what your flow shows you are winning.
 * 3) **Empirics or Educated Opinion, that is the question? ** This kinda jumps off standard 2. I don't inherently value one or the other, it depends on how well you explain why your evidence is more significant and the age of the card. If you are running a piece of 2010 analysis from some UC Berkeley behavioral scientist, cool. If your opponent has some statistical or empirical examples from 2014 that directly disprove the analysis, empirics win, but it can also work the other way around. If you are running an argument that absolutely needs hard, real world examples (like, the living wage makes unemployment increase/decrease) you better have some stats to back it up. Honestly, the best way to structure a contention is to layer it with expert analysis, statistics or empirics to prove that this plays out in the real world, not just this person's head, and then your own explanation of significance/links/analysis, especially since the majority of cards from briefs are pretty insufficient and generic on their own.This is when weighing and impact analysis is really important. Tell me what to value more in the round. I reserve the right to call for cards if necessary.
 * 4) **Let's be clear on the need for ** **speed**: I loved spreading in high school and can handle very fast spread, just make sure to enunciate. I will yell clear if needed, but after 2 or 3 "clears" you will start losing speaks if you don’t listen.
 * 5) **I'm OK with K's: ** Feel more than free to be creative and unique, just make sure it makes sense, as per 2 and 3. What I mean is that you should thoroughly understand what you are running, stay consistent with your framework, be able to handle the obvious questions it will incur in Cross Ex ("Death is Good K"- Then why hasn't everyone already committed suicide?) back it up with analysis and justify why this is significant. It is always really obvious when somebody is running a case that was just handed to them by a coach or more senior competitor Furthermore, if you are critiquing somebody's rhetoric within the round and tell me that the role of the judge is to be a critical intellectual, don't bite into that rhetoric. It will end badly for you.
 * 1) **Speak up! ** I award speaker points for content, strategy, and structure more than talking pretty. Pathos is not appreciated//.// I am a logos-based, Apollonian Spoc, don't make me acknowledge anything I can't weigh on the flow, it wastes your time. A clever cross examination period will help your points (even though cross-x isn't binding in terms of arguments on the flow) if you're responses and questions are good, because that is part of good strategy. Courtesy does matter for speaker points, so let's all play nice. Watch your rhetoric; anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or transphobic will nuke your speaks. My speaks are generally higher than 26. 27-27.5 is average-proficient, 28 is awesome, 29 is " I really wanted to give you 30, but there was (blank) tiny issue". 29.5-30 means the round was pure beauty in motion.
 * 2) **RVI's: **Ok, for whatever reason, this is like cilantro for most people in the debate community; they either think they're the best, most clever thing ever or that they're a horrible abomination. I really, seriously, don't have a strong opinion either way, I think it is very much a case by case situation.

Each debate round is different, so these are just guidelines and if you have a question that this didn't answer, feel free to ask. As you can tell from my philosophy, I'm normally an LD judge, but most of the standards outlined apply to other forms of debate. I competed in Parli for 2 years, Public Forum for 3 years, and LD, Extemp (predominantly IX) and Impromptu for 4 and graduated from Delta Charter HS in 2012 and have been judging/ a little bit of coaching since then. Senior year I qualified to TOC Extemp with 5 bids (so I appreciate well-constructed IR arguments). I didn't compete in Policy in high school, but I'm fine with spread as well as Plan/CP, every-impact-leads-to-nuclear-war-or-is-racist kind of debate, so don't fret. I graduated Cal with a BS in Genetics and Plant Biology (so, I also appreciate well-constructed ecological arguments) at Cal, competed for their IE team for three years (again, mostly extemp and impromptu) and now I'm their alumni coach. Good luck!

College NPDA/good HS Circuit Parli <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Just as a heads up, my philosophy on wikijudges is geared towards high school, so refer to this one for NPDA. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Short version:** I’m a flow judge down with most K’s, spreading, CPs (condo or uncondo) and narratives. For the love of coffee, SIGNPOST. Don’t run bad science. I love IR and current events. I hate Eurocentric perspectives. Theory debate is cool when it’s done well and painful when it’s done poorly or unnecessarily. I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on RVI’s. Topicality: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Weigh impacts. I will listen to whatever you have to say as long as it is well supported, do not just assume certain things are good or bad. Case debate is fun. Framework debate is interesting, whoever wins framework controls how I will view the round, I’m incredibly non-interventionist (unless someone’s winning the “the judge should be a critical intellectual” arg) and rarely vote on presumption, unless something egregious happens in round. Don’t be a jackass.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">^you’ll probably be fine with just that, the rest is provided for kicks and giggles.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Launching the Logorrhoea** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Use your head! Analysis:** I want to see critical engagement with the literature. Don’t just say that something is true or desirable because some author said so. Explain what you are arguing in your own words, tell me why it matters and why it is important to be heard in this round. Blippy arguments aren’t going to have much punch. When you extend, restate the analysis; I dislike extending points for the sake of just having stuff on the flow, tell me why it’s important in the round. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Disads:** I want a clear link/internal link story. This is often lacking in politics disads, which are interesting when done well and awful when they’re like “voting for this bill drains the president’s political capital”. Be specific and intrinsic. Impact calc is important and reminding me why I should be weighing all this under your framework. I’m not tied to Probability >Magnitude or Manitude>Probability – you convince me which one I should prioritize. Timeframe can be a good tie-breaker for this.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I’m not a big fan of relying on sweeping assumptions that some people try to mistakenly call “common sense”. Justify your positions, even if you think they’re obvious; remember what I said about hating Eurocentrism? Guess what, I don’t think US hedge is good, I think a lot of things about food aid are profoundly screwed up, and that MAD is stupid AF and has done way more harm than good, just to name a few things. This does not mean I won’t vote on something that I disagree with – I have many times, I am a tab flow judge and hate judge intervention. It just means that you need to provide reasons for why something is good or bad, don’t just assume it is inherently.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Theory:** If you run it, please make sure it's warranted. I have voted on it and will if it isn't responded to, but it’s not exactly my favorite type of debate. Clarify what you mean by “reasonability” and why you are being more reasonable. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Non-topical Affs**: Go for it. **Extra-topical plans:** If you’re all debating the resolution straight up, being extra-T isn’t very fair. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Let's be clear on the need for** **speed**: I loved spreading and can handle pretty fast spread, just make sure to enunciate. I will yell clear if needed, but after 2 or 3 "clears" you will start losing speaks if you don’t listen. Please don’t spread out teams that can’t spread; it’s mean and I will be mean back to you on the ballot. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Speak up!** I award speaker points for content, strategy, and structure more than talking pretty.Let's all play nice. Watch your rhetoric; anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, abelist, or transphobic will nuke your speaks. My speaks are generally higher than 26. 27-27.5 is average-proficient, 28 is awesome, 29 is " I really wanted to give you 30, but there was (blank) tiny issue". 29.5-30 means the round was pure beauty in motion. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**RVI's:** Ok, for whatever reason, this is like cilantro for most people in the debate community; they either think they're the best, most clever thing ever or that they're a horrible abomination. I really, seriously, don't have a strong opinion either way, I think it is very much a case by case situation. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**K's:** Feel more than free to be creative and unique, just make sure it makes sense. What I mean is that you should thoroughly understand what you are running, stay consistent with your framework, be able to handle the obvious questions it will incur ("Death is Good"- Then why hasn't everyone already committed suicide?) back it up with analysis and justify why this is significant. It is always really obvious when somebody is running a case that was just handed to them by a coach or more senior competitor. I’m decently familiar with critical literature/arguments regarding Anthropocentrism, Ecofem, Indigeneity/Settler Colonialism, and Racial Positionality. I know little bits and pieces of other areas (like Disability Politics or Queer Theory – and a bunch of random stuff written by Marxist doctors on healthcare and neoliberalism; it was a weird summer.) and am more than happy to listen to whatever you want to run, I just might not be terribly familiar with the lit so make sure to clearly explain the thesis. Please feel free to ask me before the round if you want a clarification on my knowledge base. Furthermore, if you are critiquing somebody's rhetoric within the round and tell me that the role of the judge is to be a critical intellectual, don't bite into that rhetoric. It will end badly for you.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;"> There are a few specific K's that I have more strict criteria for.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Nietzsche**: Please for the love of all that is good in the world, don't run a Nietzsche K in front of me unless you have actually **read** some Nietzsche. All the bastardized embrace suffering stuff I hear all the time is not Nietzsche.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Give Back the Land:** This can either be done really well or really poorly. A lot of the time, running this is pretty much just commodifying the suffering and exploitation and genocide of hundreds of Peoples for the ballot in a round. Please don't be one of those teams or I will drop you. Read “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” if you disagree with this and then think about what I said again. If you are running this case without any cards from Native authors, that is a serious paternalistic problem. It's also hard when the "plans" proposed don't leave room for biracial Native Americans, especially considering we have the highest "out-marriage" rates of any ethnicity. If you are running this case to help rhetorically overthrow colonialist power structures and are actually representing Native voices, then you belong on the other half of the equation are running this case for the right reasons.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Speed K's:** Just have solid reasons for why your opponent spreading is abelist or exclusionary. If you have a disability that makes spreading either impossible for you to perform yourself or listen to/flow, if you have asked your opponent not to spread before the round, and your opponent still spreads, then yes absolutely run a speed K.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Quick thing on **poetry**- a lot of arguments I’ve heard against poetry being used in round are really classist. I do not believe that poetry is only a tool of the elite and educated or that marginalized individuals who use it are traitor pawns of the ivory tower. Arguments that essentially boil down to “poetry is exclusionary because it’s bourgeoisie” are not going to work for me. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Narratives:** Hell. Yes. I strongly believe narrative debate has an important role in asserting the voices of marginalized groups in academia. These are experiences and perspectives that the overwhelmingly wealthy white able cis/het male institutions of academia have isolated. Other authors publishing nuanced work on these topics can be rare, which is part of where narrartives come in to fill that gap. Narratives are NOT whining- narrative debate is a way for the debater to become a producer of knowledge. Talking about structural violence with first person language does not make these topics any less academic; somebody else does not need to study you for your problems to be worthy of being heard and debated.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">That being said, if you are running a narrative – do NOT make sweeping assumptions about your opponents or judges, particularly in regards to things that nobody should have to feel forced to disclose about themselves to a room full of strangers, like mental health status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or a history of experiencing abuse/domestic violence. Your job is to attack power structures, and I have no tolerance for teams who invalidate their opponents' identities and their rights to display them how/when they choose to. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Please don't let the round turn into the Oppression Olympics. Don't let your args against narratives devolve into "actually, I am more oppressed than you because X " - narratives are to highlight structural violence, it's not personal. It is not about you, the debater running a narrative is an empiric to a larger argument that highlights particular systems of power. We shouldn't have to pretend like these systems don't apply to us in some way when we run cases, and at the end of the day, nobody is attacking YOU, they are indicting particular systems of power. Engage with the power structures in the round.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Each round is different, so these are just guidelines and if you have a question that this didn't answer, feel free to ask.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Good luck, have fun!