Meera Keskar ParadigmLast changed 8/5 4:50P EDT
NPDA style Parli debater at Prospect (2013-17); Assistant Coach at New Roads School. Flow and Lay Parli (circuit). BP and Policy at USC (current).
I’m a junior in college who did high level parli. I will vote for anything as long as you explain it well. As a judge, I’ll probably vote for whoever has the clearest path to the ballot. I want it to be easy to vote, so do that for me.
I will call clear if I have to, but speed isn’t a problem. Keep tag-lines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow.
I’m down for them as long as they have a link. Parli generally has larger K frameworks than policy, so I’m down with that default. K affs are all good in policy, but are sketch in parli unless they have a policy alt. Never have 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. Additionally, if you force me to listen to the bastardized debate version of a philosopher, I will auto-drop you out of respect for the great mind who you chose to dishonor. Very low threshold on offense against truth testing framework.
Make sure to explain how the CP functions. Good case debate is better than bad K or theory debate, so don’t be cheaty just because you have a backfile. If you choose to read a perm, I need you to 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. High threshold for PICs bad. Low threshold for condo.
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.
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
25 - Learn to think before you speak (P.S stop being racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc)
26~26.5 - Serious strategic errors that probably lost you the round
26.6~27 - You probably still lost the round, but at least you didn't double turn yourself in every arg
27.1~27.5 - Eh you had strategic errors but you did more good than harm
27.6~28 - Pretty darn average
28.1~28.5 - I probably nodded because you poked at your opponent's case and it slowly crumbled (should break)
28.6~29 - Damn you know what you are doing strategically (should be in finals)
29+ - GOOD GOD PLEASE WIN THE TOURNAMENT
I don’t shake hands. Germs are gross.
Off-time road maps ONLY.
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 - firstname.lastname@example.org
or FB message me