They/them ( Ask for other ppls in rounds pls!!)
You can call me whatever. Razeen, Judge, ãä¸»äººæ§.
email chain: razeennasar1@gmail.com
As a judge I critique y'all with feedback. However, I feel judges can't be told about their competency. Especially with the position of authority. Please don't see me as an all-knowing authority figure. I am a student just like y'all. I sleep, go to school sometimes, and am a disappointment to my parents. I'm human not a debate robot. You can use this form to criticize my judging without having your name attached. Or say I'm not lame and I did well.
Note: everything cut down word wise so it takes less time. Hence bare bone wording. Pls ask for elaboration irl :) Based on average reading speed TLDR will take 1 minute, whole thing 6.5 minutes of reading. Immensely cut down from initially 20 min(egregiously long).
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeRkloyjH8sARng_HNNNPtHhlMFaIrPK0jekgp7bspJ9jppeg/viewform?usp=sf_link
SHORT I DONT WANT TO READ AN ENTIRE THING OF NONSENSE BUT I WANT TO KNOW THE JIST:
Did HS PF debate+ college parli. was okay in HS pretty good in college now.
Mostly, Tech>Truth. However, don't use tech to bully. Still subconsciously influenced by bias. Uncontrollable. Some arguments I inherently understand more.
Pf 2nd rebuttal frontlines. No New Offense FF not in summary. Policy/LD don't know extension norms thus gonna be forgiving w/ extensions.
Generally against tech being topicality, Theory, and Ks Would consider non-disingenuously for real abuse/problematic rhetoric.
Spreading can't flow fast so it's bad. Don't sound like you are drowning.
Extinction big no no. Unless topic calls for it. No daylight savings causes extinction(real round)
Make sure not same impact scenario. Don't weigh Nuke war w/ Russia against Nuke war w/ Russia on magnitude. Compare links. Talk about uniqueness.
I prefer warranted low magnitude high probability vs high magnitude low probability. Even if an argument outweighs, if it isn't extended well and I can't explain it I won't vote off it. Argument understandability is a prereq to voting on any argument for me. I have ALOT of rounds where I vote for an impact cuz it's the only one explained.
Jargon pls no. I barely know prog debate.
Don't expect me to understand afro-anthropessimism pre-post modern feminist neo liberal hauntology @400WPM.I barely understand my college lecturers at 1/4th that speed. even at normal pace without accessible wording I won't get it. 100% have not read your arg lit before. Need slow good explanation for new concepts to me aka most of arguments.
Don't assume I remember what each author said. I don't remember 1/2 of UCSD debaters in a quarter. You think I'm gonna remember aiusdbh 13 from the 1NC 45 minutes ago.

Parli
--------------------
I compete in college parli. I have no clue what the norms are in HS parli. College parli is basically policy without the cards. So that is how I see parli. Pls don't try to spread it's already painful to hear in college. If it's the norm I'm fine with topicality and Counterplans. Please don't read an aff K, and if that isn't a norm yet thank god. I am open to K arguments if it isn't used to shut out opponent and outspread them with complicated jargon.
I have won 4 college parli tournaments this past year so like I feel like I know what's up with parli.

Longer preferences
--------------------
 I am an idiot
---------------
I'm stupid, not a humble statement. Don't let the absurd length fool you. It's a sign of insecurity, not knowledge. This is at the top for a reason. I make wrong decisions when forced to think myself. Verbally make a speech that I can nearly mimic in my RFD.
I'm not competing so don't assume I know topic-specific acronyms/words are. Common sense ideas to you aren't common sense to most people. I can't figure out push or pull doors don't think I can figure out your argument.
Debate jargon for prog is a no no. Just take the couple of extra seconds to explain. Don't assume arguments. Explain things like "fairness/education voter" and "reasonability means judge intervention" even though seems common sense explain why these are good/bad.
Fully explain all your args. The reasons why an argument is logically true beyond evidence.
Don't say extend from past speech. I already forgot that last speech bro. I have the short-term memory of a goldfish. Think of it this way, in your classes if your teacher says expanding on what was said 15 minutes ago, and doesn't somewhat reexplain there is simply confusion.
Access
--------
Don't use tech debate as a way to bully new debaters. Tech is meant to make debate fairer, and challenge knowledge. Instead, it's become a tool used by the privileged to win silly arguments with coach-made responses that less-resourced schools can't beat. Don't contribute to bad debate norms I will be sad.
Experience:
HS PF+ College Parli. was mid in HS (4-3 STOC). College I got better & have won tournaments. College parli is budget policy w/out cards. However, I'm mostly a topical debater. Vaguely understand/use CPs/T/Ks/Theory.
General debate
------------------
In short, I will try to find the quickest way and clearest way to vote. If an argument is messy I'll likely vote off something way smaller that may not even outweigh. I want your last speeches to be what you want me to say in my RFD.

Tech Truth?
I am generally tech over truth with a couple of exceptions

When tech is used as a means to exclude
Dump low-quality args hoping for drops.
Arguments are clipped
Borderline false args e.g Nuke war good have low threshold for response.

Case
Please send case. Allows me to flow. Flowing helps me keep track. More likely to vote for yall. Also just good practice.
Rebuttals
Please try to signpost. By that I mean if you directly say, which response with things like " on x argument, their yth response about z we have x amount of responses. or if it's 1 response give the response.

Also, please don't say "no evidence, no warrant, no explanation" rather explain why the lack of a warrant means their argument is false and what it actually is like. Also, I am down for logical arguments. Not everything needs to be carded if it's analytical. If something is analytical like "no one wants to be nuked" and you say nO eViDenCe then there is no way I'm voting on the response.
Final speeches:
Please voters. Frame independent reasons to vote rather than line by line. go reasons why you win, and cover defense/turns on their offense.
Line by line = Line w/out the ine.
While I try to exclusively flow. Directing me on the flow can make me interpret the flow in a better way for y'all. Will focus on what I'm told to. So focus on best args.
Pls collapse. 1 good arg>3 bad arguments. Either you collapse or my mental health collapses.
Don't say "extend (author)" or "extend my response on x argument." extend what the author says or the argument itself. If you don't explain your arguments and just assume I know them I won't vote for them!
-----------------
Weighing
-----------------

I.Will.Do.Anything.I.Can.To.Not.Vote.On.Bad.Extinction.Scenarios.Within.my.Power.as.a.Judge.
Exceptions are topics that kinda rely on those ideas. Like Conflict for NATO/ great power conflict. Or climate change for PRC econ or enviro. Heavily prefer against it.
Probability weighing:
Fleshed-out arguments are rewarded. Don't go for the "risk of offense infinite magnitude extension multiply infinity." not gonna vote on that. arg of "risk of offense" means you aren't good enough to defend case. a low chance of your case to me is a 0 chance. However, the opponent needs to win probability claims.

Same/similiar impact weighing:
Make sure you aren't having exact same or similar impact to the opponent then OW on "magnitude"
Many topics have different sides same impact. Rather than weigh impacts you compare links or compare uniqueness. Uniqueness is the better route for me. 2 possible ways to deal w/ clash IMO.

1.Mostly look to Uniqueness 70% of time. Is SQUO going good or nah. If going well why fix something that isn't broken. Inversely, if things going wrong we need to take action to fix.
2. Distinguish impacts. Explain why your scenario uniquely links more. Maybe it's more specific. It affects more countries. It has bigger actors. Your link bigger than theirs. Whatever way to show e.x how your link into nuke war is better than theirs.

---------------------------
Progressive Debate
---------------------------
Structural Violence: Only prog argument I vibe with. Main it center of your narrative. Don't make it secondary defeats the purpose of prioritizing underprivileged if you deprioritize them by dropping arg on it.

Spreading: I can't follow it at all. I'll try to follow doc. Tell me what you cut from it. Heavily prefer not. Don't use as a way to shut out opponents. Will insta L.

Topicality:Don't read to add an extra layer. I will be sad. Don't make bad debate norms. Abusing new teams w/out resources to learn about debate in the meta sense is shameful. Only read if legit non-topical. If actually hurts ability to debate use it. Don't say "fairness/education voter" explains why. Default reasonability.

Kritik:I PROMISE I don't know your lit. I am stupid. keep it simple. Don't use area-specific lingo. If you have to have heard it before to know it don't read it. If you can't be simple w/ it that means you don't know it. Kinda troll nowadays become cancelling your opponent for "insert ism"
I have, lately, been more sympathetic to them in certain instances. I am fine with Kritiks on nuke war impacts, western construction of "terrorists," Orientalism on China impacts, Democracy promotion bad/ causes othering, AI deserving rights, Speed bad K, and tech debate bad K. Ultimately, I won't want to vote on a K that can be linked to anything and any topic. I feel that anything that is legit misunderstood and really messed up to the point where it shouldn't be "seen from both sides" is a place I would legit evaluate a Kritik.

K aff: No lol. screams "I'm not good enough to defend the topic, and I'm lazy." If you feel passionate anyway read it.

Theory:Frivolous theory will lead to AUTO L 25. Won't deal with it. Default RVIs. Minimal experience judging theory. The threshold for abuse is high. Must prove in-round abuse, not potential abuse.
POLICY DEBATE
------------------
Don't understand "new sheets" and flowing is hard. Though i try my best. Most decision focused on 1/2 AR/NR. Better to be honest it's hard for me than lie. Sorry! I will try to be as informed as possible by the round. Pls bear with my stupidity. Know I'm trying my hardest to give a good decision.

MISC
----------------
If you made it down here Idk why you wasted time reading this far lol
Disclose decision:
Yes, if tourney allows. Will try to be quick. Will try to be constructive as possible. If not being constructive lmk. Want to talk about strengths, improvement areas, the round itself, if you loss potential paths to the ballot. For winning team how to make more clear. A lot of apologizing. Pls if you have an issue bring it up w/ me directly rather than say stuff outside of round. I want to clarify and not "judge screw" as I had that as a debater I felt and ik the frustration. If you found RFD good bad you can give feedback on form.
If flight 1 goes quickly I will give feedback. If y'all troll with timing I'll just type my feedback. I assume y'all prefer to hear, just start the round ASAP.
NDCA wiki:
If you disclose that's cool and awesome! However, I'm not receptive to disclosure theory in PF. In other events, if used to bully new debaters that won't be tolerated.
Decorum:
The presentation has a subconscious effect on everyone. Will try to prevent that.
No tolerance for rude debaters. Will drop if bad enough rudeness. Don't be overly rule stigent/ talk over people/ be snarky/make too many faces. Also, will lower speaks. Be nice! Isn't hard. Will give high speaks otherwise.
IRL politics:
Pure tab judge is impossible and fake. IRL knowledge sphere is Marxism. not the "government does stuff" leftism though. Fine with being critical of America and the economy.