lila lavender
Paradigm Record Certifications
Paradigm Statement
Last changed 25 May 2023 6:44 PM PDT
She/Her
Hey yall!! I'm lila!!
Email Chain: For both LD and Policy I would like to be on an email chain, email is [ask me before the round starts]. If you have any questions or revolutionary criticisms of my paradigm, I would love for you to email me as well!! ^^ To keep my paradigm as short as possible, I have also omitted my thoughts on how I evaluate specific positions (i.e Ks, theory, ADV/DAs, etc). So if you have any questions about that, feel free to email me or find me before prep/the round/etc!!
Quick Pref Sheet:
1 - K
2/3 - LARP
3/4 - Theory (I am good at evaluating theory and went for it all the time when I was competing, vacuous debate just makes me mad).
4/5 - Phil
10 - Tricks (ill just never vote on this).
Paradigm - Short:
Tech > truth.
Go as fast as you want, i'll be able to flow it.
I judge every debate format in the same way: on the flow and based on (in one way or another) which team or debater wins offense that outweighs their opponents.
I will never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. For example: capitalism good, neoliberalism good, imperialist war good, fascism good, bourgeois (like US) nationalism, normalizing Israel or Zionism, US white fascist policing good, etc.
Barring the above, read whatever you want and i'll vote on it if you win it!!
Paradigm - Long:
Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. I have realized as a result of this, I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when i'm judging - as thats both impossible and opportunism. If you have had me as a judge before, this explicit decision of mine does not change how you understand I evaluate rounds, with one specific exception: I will no longer evaluate and thus ever vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. Meaning, arguments/positions which defend the bourgeoisie's class dictatorship (monopoly capitalism and thus imperialism), from a right-wing political form. I.e., the politics, ideology, and practice of the right-wing of the bourgeoisie.
Examples of arguments of this nature are as follows: fascism good, capitalism good, imperialist war good, neoliberalism good, defenses of US or otherwise bourgeois nationalism, Zionism or normalizing Israel, colonialism good, US white fascist policing good, etc. In the context of a debate round, by default this will function through 'drop the argument.' I.e., if you read an advantage or DA that represents the right-wing of the bourgeoisie, I won't evaluate that advantage or DA. If your whole 1AC or 1NC strategy is rightest capitalist-imperialist in nature, I won't evaluate your whole 1AC or 1NC. This only becomes 'drop the debater' if you violently and egregiously defend counterrevolution.
For example, if the arc of your argument is about how Afghanistan can never be self-reliant and is inherently 'full of terrorists' (thus requiring US imperialist rule), you will lose regardless of what happens on the flow. The brightline for what I described above is liberalism. Or in other words, I will still evaluate 'soft left' positions/arguments - those which represent the liberal wing of the bourgeoisie. To be clear, this is not because liberalism is any less counterrevolutionary or less of a weapon of monopoly capitalism than rightism is. Nor is this the modern revisionist nonsense which posits that there is a 'peaceful' wing of the bourgeoisie and thus imperialism.
Rather, it's because it's a practical necessity given debate's class basis. In one way or another, given debate's bourgeois class basis and function as imperialist propaganda, the vast majority of 1ACs/1NCs are liberal in some form; this includes the vast majority of Ks. Thus, if I were to extend this paradigm to correctly also cease evaluating liberal arguments/positions, it would mean either it would be impossible for me to evaluate 99% of rounds or there would be a even higher chance of me getting struck out of the pool. Which in the practical sense is not a decision I can make, because as a result of US monopoly capitalist exploitation, I rely in-part on judging to eat and survive bourgeois class warfare otherwise.
So within that context, as much as I can, I will use my power as a judge to propagate the Maoist line and remove as much of the most explicit reactionary arguments/positions as possible. As Aly put it, "some level of paternalism from those of us who are committed to ensuring the future survival of this activity is necessary." I know that there are going to some individuals who are greatly upset by this paradigm. For the vast majority of you, thats fine, the class antagonism is clear. For the rest of you, whose concerns may be genuine, consider the following.
Every single judge exerts a paradigm that, to differing degrees, will not evaluate particular arguments/positions. Most judges do not explicitly state or justify what that entails, and many judges do explicitly as well - in both positive and negative ways. For example, many judges (correctly) will not vote for openly racist/cissexist/misogynistic/nationally oppressive arguments; it goes without saying, but I won't ever vote for and will drop you for these arguments as well. Or in another way, (incorrectly) debate conservatives refuse to vote for Ks all the time.
The only reason this specific paradigm will seem especially concerning, is because of the bourgeois class nature of debate and thus its' ideological function in service of imperialism. One which is inherently in contradiction to proletarian revolution and human emancipation, and thus antagonistic to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This is demonstrated well by the contradiction that most judges correctly will vote down debaters for being openly racist, yet will vote for positions which endorse the butchering of colonized and nationally oppressed People by US imperialist wars; something ive been guilty of in the past. As always, if you have any questions or good-faith criticisms of anything I mentioned within my paradigm, please don't hesitate to email me - I will always get back to you as soon as I can!! :))
Proletarians of all countries, unite!!
Misc Thoughts:
Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/ Note: don't use this as an opportunistic excuse to not defend or have a line on New Afrikan national liberation, as thats gross and chauvinist. I am a transgender woman who has a deeper voice, please take that into account. It's exhausting to see judges and debaters who are unable to resolve this contradiction, either attribute my RFD to men on the panel, or treat me like a man as a result of my voice. Cap debaters need to stop reading modern revisionism or 'left' opportunism guising itself as 'Marxism,' and truly grasp what Marxism is. This is a good place to start study wise: https://michaelharrison.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/The-Collected-Works-of-The-Communist-Party-of-Peru-Volume-2-1988-1990.pdf It's a real shame that as a result of bourgeois feminism, be that white feminism or cissexist feminism, debaters have abandoned advancing the necessity of women's liberation. The proletarian line on feminism needs to be brought to debate, here is a good place to start study wise: https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/S02-Philosophical-Trends-in-the-Feminist-Movement-9th-Printing.pdf For Parli Only - I will NEVER vote for an argument that says "reading Ks is only for rich schools and only rich debaters read Ks." There is a reason why this argument is read 99% of the time by schools and debaters flush with capital, it's because it's a bourgeois lie and distortion of debate history. Particularly one which, among many things, enables and was enabled by white chauvinism in debate. There is a good chance I will drop you for making this argument as well, so either don't read it in front of me or better yet strike me. While their are certainly contexts in which trigger warnings are legitimately necessary, i.e in graphic descriptions or displays of counterrevolutionary violence (sexual or otherwise), there are also ways in which trigger warnings are weaponized by bourgeois politics for counterrevolution. I.e., how it's used to obscure or mystify ongoing exploitation and thus oppression, or to protect bourgeois sensibilities. Merely discussing the existence of counterrevolutionary violence DOES NOT require a trigger warning, that is absurd and nothing but liberalism. If this occurs in a round that I am judging you in, I am very receptive to revolutionary criticisms of this liberalism. As Black Like Mao puts it "it is important to steel oneself because real life has no trigger warnings. This is not a call to willfully subject oneself to a constant barrage of horrors, because that is a recipe for depression and all kinds of other nasties, but a reminder that this stuff is happening and if you happen to be in the midst of one of these incidents there is no running away or covering one’s eyes." Given events that happened during the 2022 Stephen Stewart finals, I now have a very specific threshold for voting on Speed Bad theory. That threshold being that unless you have disclosed to your opponents that you have an audio-processing disability and/or show me your flows (your lack of ability to flow the arguments being spread), I will not vote on Speed Bad theory. The way this will function on the technical level is that if that threshold is not met, or another threshold which objectively not subjectively proves engagement was not possible (because of speed), I will grant the other team a we-meet on the interp - regardless of what happens on the flow. To be clear, this is not because I don't think that there are legitimate justifications of Speed Bad theory or that teams don't abuse speed in reactionary ways, there are and they do. But rather, it's because this interp has and continues to be used in an actively counterrevolutionary way. I.e., to advance monopoly capitalist and thus imperialist propaganda, and justify blatant male chauvinist harassment. This does not apply to novices.
Search Judge Paradigms: Join the NSDA About Help Contact Privacy Policy Terms
Wow, there’s one heck of a lot of crazy going on inside that skull, and it’s manifesting in the wildest blizzard of pretentious, arrogance-driven leftist buzz words that I’ve seen in a very long time, maybe ever.
Bump
I couldn’t read past the middle of the essay. I began to get nauseous.
These bastards are destroying the very essence of what it means to engage in what Fadiman, et al, called “The Great Conversation”, i.e., the foundations of civilization.
I didn’t read through all the standards but I’m sure whether it is true right now or not, it will be soon (unless things change): the winner is the one who can prove to be the most woke.
How does that sophomore feel as she walks into her debate round?
She has to be taught ahead of time that the idea of debate no longer exists in a world where people cannot use evidence and reason as bases for discussion.
She has to think of herself, not like Lincoln or Douglas in 1858, not even like Kennedy or Nixon in 1960. Instead, she must be like Martin Luther before Johann Eck in 1521, or Stephen before the Temple judges in 35 AD, where the purpose is not to attempt to persuade the judge of the strength of your argument, but to be a witness (Gk. martyr) to your belief before the unseen audience, both present and in the future. When you live in a world where the truth is forbidden, you must speak what is forbidden, knowing that you will lose then, but win later.
As James Russell Lowell put it:
Careless seems the great Avenger; history's pages but record
One death-grapple in the darkness 'twixt old systems and the Word;
Truth for ever on the scaffold, Wrong for ever on the throne,—
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
Read later.
When they install their dictatorship, very few cultural changes will be necessary.
And, don't be surprised if the only beer available is Bud Light.
In Parliamentary Debate tournaments at the college level, you were EXPECTED to debate EXTEREMELY unpopular positions. At my best debate at Yale in 1984, my partner and I beat Chris Coons team at Amherst when they forced us to defend Japanese Internment Camps.
The topic was “You Can’t Have it Both Ways”, and Coons and his partner defined that as stating that America could not justify being a freedom loving nation and encamp Japanese-Americans.
My partner beat Coons by one point, and I tied his partner. Only two points separated our individual performances so we all did well.
Lavender listed arguments that she will never accept from students: “fascism good, capitalism good, imperialist war good, neoliberalism good, defenses of US or otherwise bourgeois nationalism, Zionism or normalizing Israel, colonialism good, US white fascist policing good, etc.”
VIVEK RAMASWAMY SAYS THERE’S ‘NO LIMIT’ TO WHAT HE’LL SELF-INVEST INTO HIS GOP PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
Another debate judge, Shubham Gupta, is even more direct with students. “If you are discussing immigrants in a round and describe the person as ‘illegal,’ I will immediately stop the round, give you the loss with low speaks”, which means low speaker points, “give you a stern lecture, and then talk to your coach.”
Only the college educated can be so morally reprehensible, stupid, and evil all at the same time.
More than ten years ago, when my second son was doing speech and debate in junior high and high school (before he switched to science competition because of a different pretty girl), I didn’t find the policy debate competitions to be particularly affect by race.
However, the interpretation and oratory winners, especially above the local level, were always black students doing presentations in some way related to race or racism.
As a former debate student from over 50 years ago, I don’t even recognize the author’s description of the current situation as relating to my experience in HS. “Disclose evidence”??? Part of the challenge was thinking on your feet and being able to provide a reasoned response. I recognize the effect of the Internet on everything but looking up a judge’s bio statement just boggles my old school brain.
I’m glad I debated when I did. Debate was debate. You were either good at it or you weren’t. Nothing else
It becomes more apparent every day that it is impossible to peacefully coexist with the left.