Hello! I coach debate at Flintridge Prep and Westridge School.
I coach Parli, LD, Policy and Congress.
I competed in national circuit NPDA in college and I do a little Policy debate on occasion. I'm an African American studies / Comm major with a focus on colonialism and antiblackness and these studies influence the arguments I read and the discussions I have.
Please have fun, don't be rude, have the round you want.
this paradigm gets more specific as you go;
the first section is for prefs (ignore it if I'm in the PF pool, skip to the 2nd / 3rd section)
the second is just some specific debate stuff
the third is about sequencing and processing your arguments
email chain —-> KhamaniGCoaching@gmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stuff for Strikes/Prefs:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
debates about debate / pre-fiat: truth > tech
debates about warrants and information / post-fiat: tech > truth
t/fw: will vote on it but I've been labelled a K hack
Nebel T: boy, I don't get this and I'm too afraid to ask questions now, so pls explain what an up-ward tailed test is or we will both be lost
Theory threshold: pretty low to vote on, probably won't vote on shoes but I've voted on ***5 RVIs to date （ ´_ゝ`)
Critical Non T Affs: I love these, I've even been inspired to write specific positions by 2 debaters I've judged so I guess there's your spillover warrant -- pls have your fw answers and i'm super down to learn some new stuff!
"debatably" T/NonT Affs: really big fan, win your stuff
Tricks: pls don't thx ~~
Cheater CPs: love a smart CP debate. give me the net ben to the cp
High Phil: pls strike me ; I genuinely do not enjoy the process of linking offense to a FW in which two things feel very similar and struggle to eval these debates unless there is a comparative advantage / cp / k format. I will judge them if I have to, but its a debate I don't enjoy.
Args like Warming good / Recession good / death good; if warming is good bc it’s great for that one species of phytoplankton, tell me why that phytoplankton is key in comparison to the climate conditions of others; i.e., incremental warming is what's happening now, incrementalism is good) Same for like death good; it's gotta be like "we need to reorient how we see death" otherwise, you're gonna be in for a rough time
K v K debates: probably my preferred debate, as long as you explain what's going on, I'm here to let you run your round and evaluate it how you want me to. These are really fun debates for me to become engaged in and one I love watching.
Case Debate / Turns: yee these are cool
If you have specific questions about literature bases I’ve read or are familiar with; just send me an email and I’ll get back to you. If not, ask before the round and I’ll answer or just read it and explain it to me; so read the whole thing if you can, otherwise scan for the bold text for the “Reading My Paradigm during Prep Time,” version.
- I have a very low threshold on Theory. I’m likely to vote on potential abuse, but if it’s looking like you’re gonna go all in on T, proven abuse is probably the safer route. This means I love clash and will support it, however, if you make me vote on “must provide a written copy of the plantext,” (which I’m a huge fan of, by the way) unique standards will put you ahead. ———I default to reasonability on T but can be persuaded otherwise. So, please say otherwise and you won’t have a problem. ;)——I will not pick up your RVI on T. Sorry. Forcing the judge to vote for the AFF Bc they were topical isn’t a threshold I'd prefer to cross but warranted RVIs or ones you can justify, I'm pretty receptive to. ——- also, if you’re deliberately spreading someone out of a round, I’ll probably pick up their speed procedural, Golden turn, criticism, whatever. Bc I think that’s not cool. Inclusivity and access are important. If it’s egregious, I’ll drop you on sight. If both sides are spreading against my threshold for speed and I yell clear several times, I’ll either 1) drop the team that did it first or 2) presume Neg.
- I love the K debate. FW, Thesis (pls, like even if it’s quick just give me the breakdown), Links, Alt, Alt solvency. I’m receptive to framework, so if you’re answering framework pls don’t just tell me to crossapply things w/o giving me an explanation of how things work first. (Then say it :)) I dabbled in afropess, afrofuturism, cruel opt, performance. Just bc I read them doesn't mean ill backfill for your args, I still expect you to explain the context of how your args interact with the args // scenarios presented.
- Real big fans of Case debates and seeing people go for case negs in the 1nc is really compelling to watch.
- I love good clash from the Neg but I’m a sucker for PICs. It's just a fun debate to have. Pic teams should know how to defend their strat choices.
- I think turns are very underused, while also being very under-explained as to how they function in the debate space. Pls read uniqueness the other way and provide some analysis / warrant that proves that to be bidirectional, and if you can win your turns, I’ll vote on them. This is pretty specific to PF, as I've noticed teams will make turns on arguments and win them and not go for those turns or even interact with them, or teams will let people concede turns and not point out the offense on that sheet.
- There’s a really good chance I may have to intervene if you don’t tell me what I’m voting for in rebuttals - Parli x Policy x LD / summary or final focus (PF). Please collapse. I can't stress this enough. make a choice. Weigh your impact, prove the link to the impact and weigh that against their impacts. P L E A S E. smart concessions also are important. You don't need to win every single argument in the debate. But, tell me why the ones you're choosing to go for matter.
- Your rebuttal should write my RFD. Tell me about what impact scenario beats the other team’s. Give me framing and calculus. PLEASE. Whether it be the theory level or the link level or thesis level or alt solvency, whatever. Why are you winning this round? If you’re right, you’ll know it.
- Collapse. Don't go for every piece of offense in the debate; you're not winning all of it. Prioritize and weigh your way out. Which weigh? yeah dat way.
- Pls don’t make me judgekick a plan or theory shell. Tell me what to do with it, Bc you’ll be mad if I don’t vote on it. If you make a shadow extension from something said earlier that’s chill. In PF, I will not vote on things said in case that do not get extended in summary. Meaning, your debate may technically feel like it starts in Summary. That's fine.
- I process information visually and will keep as tight of a flow as possible, but 1 of 2 things happen; (a) ill catch a cite and miss part of the tag bc I’m struggling to spell the cite w/o prompts on how it’s spelled (b) I’m struggling to hear you and am looking very confused. Looking for ways you can help me? Great! a) resummarize a particular point in your own words; especially if you feel like the decision is gonna come down to that anyway, just so I have some version of it. b) don't just say your __ evidence covers this; it happens, we all do it, but it's difficult if I'm assuming I know what you're referring to, and am not certain.
- Pls be friendly. (We’ve All had to debate someone that we’ve had beef with and even if it gets rough, pls try to be civil with each other.) But on another note, I like a sassy debate but I love seeing two close friends hash out a tough round. That means pls be respectful. If you’re a guy shouting down a girl in cross ex Bc you think it’s “dominating” or any other form of machismo,” to put someone else down, I will tank your speaks and have a hard time voting for you and will drop you. Ask for pronouns, names, whatever. Also time yourself. I should be able to trust y'all.
- I’m a process flower; I unfortunately don’t have the ability to write what I hear as I hear it, but I will listen harder than anyone else in the room to appear to have the most neurotypical flow and write my brains processing of what you’ve said. This doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy a fast debate or faster than normal or conversational or speech docs. As I’m expressive, you’ll learn exactly where you need to be, by my reactions. If I’m looking very confused and not writing, I have no idea what your offense is. If I’m confused and writing, I’m probably not sure where this is going, but I’m definitely following. If I’m smiling at you and nodding, It’s probably bc I’m enjoying your argument and your stylistic choices. If I’m staring at you and nodding with a tense face, it’s probably bc I’ve flowed your argument and understand it and am waiting for more offense or framing or weighing or for you to move on to the next argument.
- I’m super down to have a faster than normal debate. But I’m gonna ask that you slow for tags, send me a copy, and give a little pen time. (KhamaniGCoaching@gmail.com) That’s fine with me. Couple things tho, if I don’t have a copy of it in front of me and you’re full on spreading, I’m gonna miss things. I promise it. You can move fast, and if I were you, I’d watch me Bc I’m VERY FACIALLY EXPRESSIVE. You’ll know if I need you to slow a little.
- Partner to Partner comm is fine. Your partner is there. Team effort. Pls don’t control your partners speech time, nor will I flow what they say, you gotta say it. But yeah do your thing.
- Have fun and feel free to ask me any questions about things I should be comfortable with in your round, Bc remember, it’s your round. Break a leg.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~how I process information and weigh arguments and sequence them on my ballot ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
· I try to find the simplest ballot story - that means I will sequence argument evaluation as I deem appropriate. I believe lengthy ballot stories are more likely to be wrong, so I err heavily towards simple decisions. in practice, this means ignoring as much of the flow as is justified.
· I don't think argument interaction has to be explicitly flagged if it's clear that there is a contestation about truths. for example, if your thesis is "the sky does not exist", I would consider that to refute "the sky is blue". That being said, pls feel free to make my life easier by flagging things if you really want to make sure I don’t miss it or prioritize it.
- I evaluate kritiks with impact framing contextualized to the entire round, in particular the other side's impacts, whether that's through a role of the ballot, prior question framing, root cause claims, or meta-ethics etc. however, the impact framing must be interacted sufficiently with the relevant impacts on the flow, or it often ends up being a clunker that doesn't help me evaluate the round.
· If your argument is warranted such that I can explain why your argument is true and / or has the implication you say it does, I am willing to vote for it. if your argument doesn't make sense to me, I’m limited in my ability to vote for it. here are two examples:
o (1) if you didn't read a solvency mechanism on your advantage, and the other team states you don’t have a solvency mech, it becomes pretty irrelevant whether or not your uniqueness and impacts flow through because you functionally don't have a solvency mechanism.
o (2) even if you extend an argument that is cold conceded, 1) I need an impact that outweighs or comes before the more clash-oriented debate 2) I won't vote for it if I don't understand it. to be clear, there is a difference between my not understanding an argument because it lacks a logical step versus not understanding something because I lack some knowledge (about the world, about your literature, etc.). in the latter case, I will default to what you say as being true. in the former, I will not.
· I try to presume I know nothing but I’m not a tab judge. it's impossible for me to not use knowledge from outside the round - all rounds assume a common basis of knowledge e.g. that people stay dead once they die (vs reincarnation). here are two independently sufficient brightlines - if you contest something about the world which I have assumed, I will drop that assumption- skep triggers are the best example of this ("knowledge is impossible" -> ill need the application that bc knowledge is impossible, we must ___ or whatever your preferred framing is) ; I will also not rely on outside knowledge if the other team flags the lack of explanation and reads at least a counter-claim - e.g. "you haven't explained why nuclear war causes extinction, global fallout is only temporary"
· I have a moderately high threshold for requiring warrants. generally, all claims should have warrants - empirics, analytics, or testimonies qualify, and are considered stronger to weaker in that order. this is a deeply rooted paradigmatic view which can be adjusted, but only through truly persuasive arguments
· Uncontested claims are possibly true (nonzero). however, pointing out that an argument has no warrant is sufficient for terminal defense on that claim if you read a competing claim, because both claims would have equal strength of link based on the warrant which means I can't evaluate them. terminal defense just needs to establish zero comparative risk, not absolute risk
Edit log Starting as of 10/12/19:
- organizing specific parts of the paradigm (nothing evaluative) - 10/12/19
- Edit to traditional / philosophy section and K Aff section and organization to *attempt* to make this cleaner and not 6+ pages of my rambling - 2/17/20
- the pandemic broke me and I eval significantly different than I used to -- 2/17/21 (hey look a year from the date, shouts to berkeley for always reframing how I see debate)