Mihir Rai Paradigm

Last changed 3/7 12:54P PDT

FYO - Greenhill LD Debate (2017-2019)

Send docs to greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

For ease, I have underlined areas of a debate that you might have questions about.

I largely agree with this blurb from Miles’s paradigm and think it accurately describes my general philosophy:

Ideal debates clearly resolve whether the benefits of a topical change to the status quo outweigh its costs. “Ideal” means I recognize (and will judge fairly to the best of my ability) some debates will fall outside of this, whether they are about topicality or counterplan competition. “Clearly resolve” means debaters have made evaluating the debate easy, with impact calculus, judge instruction, and evidence comparison. “Topical change” means affirmatives should read plans that are examples of the resolution. Hopefully the rest is self-explanatory.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’ve had enough exposure to national circuit debates to competently evaluate most arguments that you would most likely read. As a debater, I primarily read policy arguments and some Ks (primarily pessimism and I didn’t really read anything that would be considered “high theory"). All arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact. I’m best at evaluating hard policy debates and am still developing a taste for K vs framework debate (I’ve had the least exposure to these debates both as a judge and debater). Obviously, I have biases towards certain arguments which I will now identify below to help you identify what you should and should not do in rounds I am judging you.

Theory should be a way to check abuse and not create abuse – I think theory is probably the most controversial issue in LD debate, hence the emphasis on it. While I understand that theory and topicality are both strategic tools used in the game of debate, not all theory shells are made equal. It will be harder for you to win debates with theory shells that rely on creating artificial limits or constraints on the topic (ex: spec shells against whole res affs). If you choose to read a topicality shell that relies on some artificial limit, it’s important to win some form of in-round abuse otherwise I think a 2AR can win with a strong push on reasonability and an artificial limits bad argument. Specifically, on Nebel, I don’t really get why the Nebel 2NR that only extends pragmatics is ever a winning argument. If the 2NR is not clearly winning a grammar argument for Nebel, I am receptive to a 2AR that includes SOME reasonable definition or grammatical argument combined with functionally any pragmatics argument. If you're going to read bad theory shells, know the threshold for responses is so low. I’ll still evaluate the shell, and if you're winning it, I will obviously vote you up. But the sillier the shell, the more receptive I am to minimal responses. This is by no means a free pass to read frivolous theory, but a heads up if you choose to read theory. Analytic theory shells should not be full speed – I guarantee you I will not get half of the things you say

The affirmative decides the ground of the debate, so the negative should get every argument to test the aff – I don’t think there are too many things the negative can’t do in a debate, but I tend to think that more than 5 to 6 off is unnecessary and just means you either run out of time to develop case arguments or have underdeveloped off case. This also makes me more receptive to 1AR theory arguments that I normally wouldn’t really check in with. I don’t think there’s an advantage you gain from saying the CP is condo or dispo, so just say its condo and have the debate (unless you have some killer dispo condition which I highly doubt). If you have the wrong interp in the document, you must clearly flag it as incorrect, otherwise I’ll hold you to whatever interp is in the document.

Conceded arguments don’t excuse extensions and effective application – I’ve seen this more recently in debates with policy arguments vs Ks. Even if your theory is conceded, you still need to explain why it doesn’t apply to the CP or DA that the negative has specific analysis for. This is where I tend to be more truth > tech because even if I know the argument the other person has made isn’t fully responsive to your theory, I’m going to buy an extended argument over the work I would have to do to connect the truth level of your theory to the other person’s arguments.

Evidence ethics and clipping Rodrigo and Bennett’s paradigms delves into this extensively and I agree with most of it. I’ve pasted a short section of the relevant section but if this is something that you think will become relevant in the round, I would read their paradigms.

If a debater says that a piece of evidence is miscut in round and their opponent clarifies that they are making an "evidence ethics challenge" (and the former person confirms that they want to make a challenge), the debate ends. I will read all of the relevant stuff and then make a decision. Whoever is correct on the evidence ethics challenge wins the debate. The loser will get the lowest speaks I can give. In lieu of an evidence ethics challenge, I am also ok with asking your opponent to just strike the cards from the doc/cross them off the flow in cx and have the rest of the debate but calling a challenge if they refuse to do so (this is noble but not required). You could also make arguments about why misquoting is bad, but I'm compelled by a response that basically says "call an ethics challenge or don't make the argument; we'll stake the debate on it." Indeed, I think that if you make an evidence ethics argument, you should be willing to stake the debate on it. If you don't stake the round on it, you'll still win (if they committed the evidence ethics violation), but your speaks will be worse than they otherwise would have been. Clipping is cheating! If I am reading along and notice that someone is clipping, I'll vote against them and give them the lowest speaks that I can give. I will not stop the debate unless a challenge is made, but if I notice clipping, I will vote on it regardless of whether a challenge is made. For clipping challenges, I'll follow the same procedure that I follow with evidence ethics (above). NDCA guidelines state that 5 words is clipping which is the standard I will use.

Speaks – Reading an argument that I don’t like as much won’t impact your speaks, but it will hold you to a higher standard on execution.

30 - Your debate will most likely be one of the best I’ve seen. Execution was flawless and strategy was unique.

29.5 and Up – You're one of the top debaters at the tournament and debated as one of the top debaters at the tournament.

29 and Up – Above average debate and minor errors. I expect you’ll be in elims

28.5 and Up – Mediocre debate where you made some flaws but found a way to get the W

28 and Up – This round was fairly disappointing, had several mistakes, and missed opportunities to win

Below 28 – There are several issues with this round that made it hard to watch

Below 27 – You have engaged in some problematic practice that should not appear in another debate (either offensive or cheating)

Happy debating

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD Finals Harker MH Apex Academies DB Neg Neg on a 2-1
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD Semis Harker AR Apex Academies DB Neg Neg on a 2-1
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD Quarte Apex Academies DB Peninsula RM Aff Aff on a 3-0
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD Octos Harker SS Loyola BM Neg Neg on a 2-1
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD Dubs Harker AD Loyola BM Neg Neg on a 3-0
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD Dubs H.B. Plant TK Marlborough LD Aff Aff on a 3-0
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD 6 Peninsula OL ModernBrain AK Neg
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD 6 Sage MP Crossings Christian JH Aff
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD 5 Sequoia AS Marlborough EY Aff
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD 5 Marlborough LD Loyola DB Aff
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD 4 Peninsula JN Marlborough ML Aff
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD 4 Loyola BM Northwood HS Independent NA Aff
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD 3 Loyola JA Los Osos RN Neg
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD 2 San Marino EW Loyola AP Neg
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD 2 Peninsula RM Marlborough LK Aff
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD 1 ModernBrain ZX Westlake EE Neg
Marlborough Spring Championship 3/6/2020 VLD 1 Harker MB BASIS San Antonio Shavano PKa Neg
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD Quarte Harvard-Westlake AG Westlake EE Aff Aff on a 3-0
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD Octafi Santa Monica RE Dougherty Valley AP Aff Aff on a 3-0
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD Octafi Sage MP Westlake EE Neg Neg on a 3-0
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD Double Presentation MS Sage MP Neg Neg on a 2-1
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD Triple Harvard-Westlake OF Harker SS Aff Aff on a 3-0
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD Triple Los Altos PD Harker RT Aff Aff on a 3-0
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD R6 Harker RM Dougherty Valley KK Aff
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD R5 Harker AG Cristo Rey MD Aff
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD R5 Harker AL Archbishop Mitty JP Neg
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD R4 Lynbrook AD Loyola IB Neg
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD R4 Bishop's AC Harvard-Westlake JC Neg
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD R3 Dougherty Valley SB Harvard-Westlake OF Neg
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD R3 Santa Monica RE Melissa ZM Aff
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD R2 Westlake EE Village RB Aff
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD R2 Harvard-Westlake IC Dougherty Valley AG Neg
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD R1 Harker SS Loyola JA Aff
34th Annual Stanford Invitational 2/8/2020 VLD R1 Loyola BM Harvard-Westlake AM Neg
Harvard Westlake Debates 1/16/2020 VLD Octofi Loyola JC Dougherty Valley KK Aff Aff on a 2-1
Harvard Westlake Debates 1/16/2020 VLD Dubs Dougherty Valley KD Legacy Christian BP Aff Aff on a 3-0
Harvard Westlake Debates 1/16/2020 VLD R6 Harvard-Westlake JZ Loyola LH Neg
Harvard Westlake Debates 1/16/2020 VLD R6 Loyola JC Harker AT Aff
Harvard Westlake Debates 1/16/2020 VLD R5 Dougherty Valley KKa Marlborough CL Aff
Harvard Westlake Debates 1/16/2020 VLD R5 Harker SS Marlborough ED Aff
Harvard Westlake Debates 1/16/2020 VLD R4 Marlborough EY Dougherty Valley AG Neg
Harvard Westlake Debates 1/16/2020 VLD R4 Loyola DB Harker NA Neg
Harvard Westlake Debates 1/16/2020 VLD R3 Marvin Baker MB Marlborough AW Aff
Harvard Westlake Debates 1/16/2020 VLD R2 Dougherty Valley KK Marlborough ML Aff
Harvard Westlake Debates 1/16/2020 VLD R2 Dougherty Valley ST Valley International Prep MA Neg
Harvard Westlake Debates 1/16/2020 VLD R1 Carmel Valley Independent JS Dougherty Valley AR Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD Octo Harvard-Westlake JI Loyola LH Neg Neg on a 3-0
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD Doub Harvard-Westlake OF Valley International Prep MA Aff Aff on a 3-0
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD Doub San Marino EW Dougherty Valley AGo Neg Aff on a 2-1
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD R6 Dougherty Valley AG Harvard-Westlake SL Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD R6 San Marino EW Menlo-Atherton AG Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD R5 Dougherty Valley KD Los Osos RN Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD R5 Harvard-Westlake GZ Dougherty Valley AP Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD R4 Dougherty Valley KK Brentwood DL Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD R4 Void SS Harvard-Westlake JZ Neg
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD R3 Dougherty Valley TM Archer School for Girls JT Neg
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD R3 Harvard-Westlake JI Dougherty Valley SK Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD R2 University HS, Irvine SL Dougherty Valley SB Neg
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD R2 Dougherty Valley NB Loyola JC Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD R1 Dougherty Valley SP Harker KM Neg
Peninsula Invitational 1/11/2020 O LD R1 Loyola SN Harvard-Westlake CC Aff
Berkner HS TFA 12/13/2019 VLD RD 3 Grapevine TT Princeton NQ Aff
Berkner HS TFA 12/13/2019 VLD RD 3 Lovejoy KC Plano West Sr AY Aff
Berkner HS TFA 12/13/2019 VLD RD 2 Shepton JG Richardson TO Aff
Berkner HS TFA 12/13/2019 VLD RD 2 Plano West Sr DJ Wakeland JC Aff
2019 Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/21/2019 TOCLD Final Archbishop Mitty JP Crescenta Valley AT Neg Neg on a 3-0
2019 Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/21/2019 TOCLD Semi San Marino EW Crescenta Valley AT Aff Neg on a 2-1
2019 Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/21/2019 TOCLD Quar Crescenta Valley AT Marlborough CL Aff Aff on a 3-0
2019 Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/21/2019 TOCLD Octas Harvard-Westlake AL Dougherty Valley KD Neg Neg on a 3-0
2019 Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/21/2019 TOCLD Doub Peninsula RM Crescenta Valley AT Neg Neg on a 3-0
2019 Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/21/2019 TOCLD Doub Marlborough EY Dougherty Valley KD Neg Neg on a 3-0
2019 Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/21/2019 TOCLD R6 Presentation MS Peninsula AR Neg
2019 Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/21/2019 TOCLD R6 Harvard-Westlake GM Loyola SN Neg
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD Semifi Harvard-Westlake AM Oak Hall KZ Neg Neg on a 3-0
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD Quarte Strake Jesuit BE Oak Hall KZ Neg Neg on a 3-0
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD Octafi Harvard-Westlake AM Strake Jesuit AMe Aff Aff on a 2-1
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD RR R7 Oak Hall KZ Northland Christian AuB Aff Aff on a 2-0
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD Double Houston Memorial AQ Harker AR Neg Aff on a 2-1
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD R6 Strake Jesuit BE William G. Enloe TG Aff
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD RR R6 Northland Christian AuB Harker AM Aff Aff on a 2-0
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD R5 Harvard-Westlake AM Edgemont RG Neg
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD RR R5 Harrison AZ Harvard-Westlake AM Neg Neg on a 2-0
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD R4 Strake Jesuit ZD Harvard-Westlake CC Neg
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD RR R4 Newark Science TO Northland Christian JQ Neg Neg on a 2-0
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD RR R3 Harker AM KAPS BT Aff Aff on a 2-0
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD R3 Dougherty Valley KK Harvard-Westlake JC Aff
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD RR R2 Oak Hall KZ Edgemont RG Aff
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD R2 Plano East WZ Dougherty Valley KD Neg
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD R1 Santa Monica RE Harker RT Aff
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD R1 Crossings Christian JH Newark Science TO Aff
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/12/2019 LD RR R1 Strake Jesuit BE William G Enloe TG Neg Neg on a 2-0
NSDA Middle School Nationals 6/18/2019 LD Finals HL Daniel Hung GG Benjamin Who Neg Neg on a 5-0
NSDA Middle School Nationals 6/18/2019 LD Quarte HX Pranav Teegavarapu AE Leah Braden Aff Aff on a 3-0
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/23/2018 LD1 Quarte Harvard-Westlake Jason Morganbesser Marlborough Olivia Feldman Neg Neg on a 3-0
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/23/2018 LD1 Octas Marlborough Olivia Feldman West Des Moines Valley Kauai Cua Aff Aff on a 3-0
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/23/2018 LD1 R6 Marlborough SarahMae Tuohy Harvard-Westlake Nathan Russell Neg
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/23/2018 LD1 R6 Marlborough Olivia Feldman Harvard-Westlake Jason Morganbesser Aff
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/23/2018 LD1 R5 Lake Highland Prep Mayah Singh West Des Moines Valley Mia Dukle Neg
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/23/2018 LD1 R5 West Des Moines Valley Kauai Cua St Pius X Catholic Dominic Brown Aff
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/23/2018 LD1 R4 Meadows Sarah Lelah Mountain Brook Jack Sansbury Aff