Meera Keskar ParadigmLast changed 11/10 6:27P EST
Parli debater at Prospect (2013-17); Coach at New Roads School. Flow and Lay Parli (circuit). BP and Policy at USC (current).
I will vote for anything as long as you explain it well. Please give content warnings pre-roadmap so that strat changes can be made accordingly. Deliberately misgendering a competitor in the round will result in an auto-loss and a not so pleasant conversation with me and a member of tournament staff. As a judge, I’ll vote for the single team that has the clearest path to the ballot. While warranted extensions can be helpful in terms of voting, I very much dislike when teams rely on "extend ___ uniqueness/argument". Chances are, there aren't as many "conceded" arguments as you think there are -- don't be lazy on the line-by-line. My default on dropped arguments is that they are true and I will evaluate them as such. If you have questions on presumption, come talk to me in person. I want it to be easy to vote, so do that for me.
I will call clear if I have to, but speed generally isn’t a problem. That being said, if your opponents are not able to compete with your speed, I expect that you will adjust accordingly. Keep tag-lines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow.
Kritiks (Updated for NPDI)
I’m down for them as long as they have a link and they aren't being read purely to deny your opponents equitable access to the debate space. Parli generally has larger K frameworks than policy, so I’m down with that default. Please avoid making generalizations about society. In the same vein, I'm inclined to vote against root cause claims without warrants. I think the aff has the ability to leverage the 1AC/plan as offense v. the alt. I find that the debates that are most engaging/convincing are ones where kritikal teams engage with case. K affs are all good in policy, but are sketch in parli unless they have a policy alt. If you feel so inclined to read a kritikal affirmative, I expect that you will disclose within 10 minutes of prep. I never read performance Ks, but am down to listen to them. I’ll flow as well as I can, but be ready to explain how you give the neg ground. Very low threshold on offense against truth testing framework. The authors/lit-bases that I am reasonably well-read on include cap, whiteness, neolib, and tuck&yang.
Make sure to explain how the CP functions in the 1NC. I am not a stickler on CPs being ME so have fun with that. Good case debate is better than bad K or theory debate, so don’t be cheaty just because you have a back file. If you choose to read a perm (in most cases, you should), I'd prefer you read a perm text and an explanation for how the permutation has solvency/functions. "Perm, do both" is not a perm text.
Default to competing interps and no RVIs, and default to theory comes first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but if it is there, point it out and your speaks will go up. If you are going for theory, you better actually go for it. I probably won’t vote on it if it is 30 seconds in the 2NR/AR. That being said, I really don't expect you to go for every theory arg you read. High threshold for PICs bad and Condo bad.
I'm going to be completely honest and say that tricks go completely over my head. That's not to say they are bad arguments or ineffective but rather that they are often inadequately explained and I fail to find a way to evaluate how they interact with other args on the flow. Ben Shahar is a much better judge for such args.
Generally default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise. Weighing is your job, not mine. This is huge. I need clear impact scenarios to vote for an argument.
Speaker Points -- I will vote on 30 speaks theory (UPDATED FOR NPDI)
25 - Learn to think before you speak (P.S stop being racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc)
26.5~26.9 - Serious strategic errors that probably lost you the round
27~27.5 - You probably still lost the round, but at least you didn't double turn yourself in every arg
27.6~27.9 - Eh you had strategic errors but you did more good than harm
28~28.5 - Pretty darn average
28.6~29 - I probably nodded because you poked at your opponent's case and it slowly crumbled (should break)
29.1~29.9 - Damn you know what you are doing strategically (should be in finals)
30 - GOOD GOD PLEASE WIN THE TOURNAMENT
NPDI Specific Conflicts
New Roads, Prospect, Mitty PU, Ashland RS, O'Dowd HO, O'Dowd RS, O'Dowd SJ, Crystal Spring MM, Crystal Spring MQ, Los Altos KaLi, Quartz Canyon BD, Nueva CS, Nueva BZ
I don’t shake hands. Germs are gross.
Off-time road maps PLEASE.
Tag-teaming is all good, but don’t be the plebe who tag teams the whole time. I will nuke your speaks.
Speaks are more based on strategy than anything else. I think that speaker points are pretty bogus considering that style preferences are quite subjective.
Shadow extensions are awful.
**Feel free to email with any questions - email@example.com
or FB message me