Carlos Penikis -- UChicago Lab

Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.

Judging philosophy:

Hi! I’ll always try to judge debates the way I would have wanted judges to act while I debated. To that purpose, I’ve divided this philosophy into three parts: how to debate in front of me, how to get good speaks, and whether or not you should pref me.

Debating in Front of Me
Everything below is just defaults or personal opinions. I’ll vote the flow, so any of this can easily change depending on what debaters say in the round.
Disadvantages: They’re great. I have no default on whether uniqueness determines the direction of the link or link determines the direction of uniqueness. Figure out which one (uniqueness or link) you’re ahead on, and explain why it’s more important. In my opinion, there’s a good debate to be had on whether or not disadvantages have to be intrinsic to the plan. I think that not intervening requires me to default to an offense-defense paradigm, but I can be persuaded to act as if terminal defense exists if a team does the work for me. Please do that work—I really don’t want to vote on politics when the aff is covert, probably bipartisan, and launches one satellite just because they control uniqueness and the courts could do the aff.
Counterplans: They’re good, if they have a solvency advocate. I’m going to be very sympathetic to theory and perm arguments for sketchy counterplans like conditions (unless they have a solvency advocate).
Kritiks: Contextualize it. Please explain the alt. I don’t know too much of the lit, but I find them very interesting. I’ll probably be sympathetic to any aff framework argument short of “exclude the K because resolved means a formal policy!” but that doesn’t mean the K can’t still turn and outweigh the case.
Topicality: I’m very sympathetic to reasonability arguments. I’m very unsympathetic to ground arguments. I have no idea why the neg has a right to generics. Please go for limits. I don't understand what an offense-defense paradigm is for topicality or theory. A risk the aff doesn't meet makes no sense—the aff is either topical, or it isn't. If arguments about why I default to offense-defense are dropped, I'll default to offense-defense, but if they're debated out, I have a hard time imagining a situation where I'd evaluate the round through an offense-defense paradigm.
Theory: Unless a team advocates an something in the 2NR, I will really want to reject the argument, not the team. Go for education impacts—debate should be hard and I’m not going to want to vote for fairness unless the other team actually makes debate impossible.

Speaker Points
I’ll award speaks almost solely based on aesthetic appeal—you should sound persuasive and passionate about your arguments. I’ll give you points right after your rebuttal so your speech in fresh in my mind. Because of this, it’s likely that I’ll give way more low point wins than most people, but I think that’s alright because speaks and the W reflect different things.
You must do a line by line. If you don’t I will not give you higher than a 26. That’s not a joke. If you do a line by line, sound passionate about your argument, and say smart stuff, I’ll give you good points. I really do want to give you good points.
Please be clear. I want to hear every word you say, because I will be flowing it.
I believe that a lot of judges should be taking speaker points must more seriously than they do, so I will disclose points and discuss what debaters should do to get better points if I’m asked to after the round.

When I debated, I was most familiar with policy-oriented strategies. If you like to go for disad and case, or case-specific counterplans, I will be a good judge for you. If you want to go for Consult NATO and Courts, I’ll vote for you, but I’ll be annoyed you’re reading a generic strat. If you read a lot of Ks, be aware that I’m no too familiar with a lot of the literature, but I’ll listen with an open mind. If you’re going to be reading a project aff, please strike me. I try to keep my personal opinions out of debate as much as possible, but that’s really hard with project arguments. Even if I do vote for you, I will not give you good speaks.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: