affiliations: american heritage boca ('21), wake forest (current debater), charlotte latin (assistant coach)

tldr; i was very flex & probably will be fine with whatever u do. i don't think true 'tab' judges exist so i won't say that i am one. debate well & you'll win. if your opponent debates better, they'll win.

full paradigm:

hey! i’m nikki/nikita (she/they). i debated ld at american heritage boca ('21) for 4 years & currently debate policy at wake forest ('24). i'm also the assistant coach of ld at charlotte latin in nc.

put me on the email chain: nikkidebate@gmail.com

as a debater, i primarily focused on critical arguments (from most schools of thought, specifics below) but i'm pretty comfortable adjudicating tricks, t/theory, framework and larp debates. i'm also decently familiar with phil arguments, just not as well versed as others.

quick prefs:

kritiks/fwk - 1

tricks/t/theory - 2

larp (aka "policy") - 2/3

phil - 3/4

odi note:

"evaluate [part of the debate] after the 1ar/2nr" won't annoy me, "evaluate [part of the debate] after the 1ac" will

lex bars note:

taken from nigel: "have the email chain setup. there is no reason you should be fumbling with an email chain 10 minutes past start time. it makes me seem late (big image [person]) and leads to tab (understandably) sending runners to annoy me...and that annoys me. put differently: even if i'm late, have the email chain set up and ready to send upon my arrival"

musings & things to know:

[1] “debate isn’t as intellectual as we pretend it is, a lot of it is community and a lot is affect” – james mollison, 2019

[2] i don't flow off the doc (pet peeve of mine), just be clear

[3] please pref me for good framework debates & good tricks debates. they make me happy. i am not your favorite k hack and if you need "k hacks" to win rounds, you're not a good debater (also means i will simply roll my eyes if you attempt to insult me on discord for being a "bad k hack").

[4] i’m more tech > truth than people assume- i'll vote on basically anything if it's conceded/explained/extended properly. i debated very k but that also means i hold k debaters to a pretty high standard.

[5] bad k debate for the sake of judge adaptation is very unnecessary and will make me sad. as a result, your speaks will make you sad. lose-lose :(

[6] taken from sai karavadi: "i will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable sorry and yes, that means i will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — you can @ me if you want"

[7] don’t be morally repugnant. don't misgender people. no -isms.

[8] please say the number along w the speech name. ex: it's 1ac not ac, or 1nc not nc. idk why this isn't the norm but it seems intuitive and as someone who did/does both ld & policy, it makes much more sense to me.

people i probably judge like: dylan burke, sai karavadi, mina lee, nigel ward, will morgan, jazmine pickens

the k

if this is your cup of tea, go for it. if it isn’t, please do not subject me to 45 minutes of warren when you don’t know what humanism is (shoutout nigel).

i'm pretty good with adjudicating these debates and am pretty well read- as a debater i’m pretty familiar with baudrillard, bataille, psychoanalysis, puar, winnubst, berardi, brown-based idptx args, warren, wilderson, gillespie, nyong'o, hartman, spillers, and barber (no one reads barber anymore, so i'll be impressed if you do and explain it well). not a big fan of setcol debates where debaters aren't indigenous but i read a fair amount of the lit sophomore year.

tldr: extend offense, use overviews to your advantage (i flow them) and answer perms well. "k tricks", whatever your interpretation of the term may be, are cool. please clash. have a theory of power and know it well.

here's what i want to see:

theory of power: win your theory of power, whatever that may be. every kritik is an orientation to the world through a certain lens, and absent winning such an orientation, it becomes extremely difficult for me to adjudicate these debates. you should have a clear explanation of this theory of power, not just buzzwords. examples are your friend.

links: reading a lot of 1nc links is fine, however, the most effective 2nrs on going for the k should collapse. i cannot overstate the importance of a 2nr that is well read, and is able to accurately collapse and weigh the kritik between the other flows. the link should be specifically implicated to the affirmative and should not rely on loose generics. this does not mean you need to cut a link card to every part of the aff, but rather be clear in your contextualization of such, and in explaining to me why that, in context of your theory of power, will matter.

impacts: the impacts debate is where i start to filter out offense and would like to see early comparative weighing, if you believe that policy education comes before baudrillard's critique of the transparency of the academy, that work should be done early on in the debate- not just the 2ar. the impact debate to me is just an extension of the methods debate that is inevitable (or at least should be) in any clash of civ round.

alternative: tell me a) what the alt does, b) how it resolves the links, c) how it solves, d) what the world of the alt looks like. the alt needs to be explicitly extended, and explained within the extension. in policy, i don't think you need to win the alt to win the k, but to win that debate in front of me in ld takes technical nuance.

permutations: permutations must be appropriately handled- do not misgroup perms that shouldn't be grouped. dropped perms are easy aff ballots. carded perms (esp from 1nc authors) are quite fun & i'll bump speaks. explain why permutations solve the kritik, and what the world of the perm looks like. perms should have net benefits- saying "perm do the aff" isn't enough work to win. weigh between the perm and the alt.

taken from jazmine pickens: "the buzzword olympics was cool, but i want to see where the links or points of difference where ever you are drawing them from so i know what does voting aff mean or what does voting neg mean."

performance/non-t affs

sure. win why the ballot matters, why debate is good/bad, what the aff does, etc. use overviews. i love these debates but you will need to do the work to persuade me on why i should vote aff/neg and why your model is good. extend offense and have good ev. k affs to me tell stories, and absent hearing what the story of the aff is, it's going to be really hard for me to actually vote aff. insofar as the entire aff performance is trying to sell me a story, i expect that said performance is continued in later speeches.

fwk v non-t affs

i love it. please don't let my aff wiki discourage you. it can be smart and strategic- operative word here is "can". about 95% of my jan/feb 2nrs versus k affs were framework. be efficient, answer the aff, compare methods (fwk v k is a methods v methods debate), do work on standards and the counterinterp. honestly, i probably lean more fwk in these debates. good 2nrs on framework make me very happy.

k v k

taken from dylan burke: "these debates often get very messy because they are incredibly shallow. the only thing i have to say in this section is that you should be articulating your theory of power in a very comprehensive way as to a) why it better explains structures that the other team b) why the alternative solves those structures c) why the links make the action that the other team is advocating for bad."

tricks

i actually quite enjoy judging/debating these- just weigh and be clear when you extend arguments. i enjoy tricks ncs (mostly skep and monism) more and more because i think that a 1nc that’s just truth testing and [nc] is increasingly strategic. apriori's are fun, dropping them is not. i'm open to judging these debates, all i ask is that you adequately collapse, weigh, and give judge instruction. presumption/permissibility are cool, i don't default to a side (if a round is really that irresolvable i'll flip a coin).

t/theory

i’m fine with it- answer args, extend, do what you would normally do. very tab in these debates. i have opinions on good v bad theory but to be honest, if it's warranted and extended (except theory arguments that implicate a debater's physical appearance) i'll evaluate it. sending interp/counterinterp texts is probably good, and i have no personal biases against just saying "converse" but i'd vote on arguments that it's illogical. i default to no rvis, competing interps, drop the arg, and text over spirit. if none of these are arguments, however, i will probably be very irritated.

phil

not the best at judging these debates, explain why "ethics is apriori" and impact things out. also, extend offense and err on over explanation. syllogisms are like stories; i will hold u to the same level of explanation as any good kritikal aff. i am fairly persuaded by kritiks against these affs, and enjoy seeing good k v phil debates.

larp/policy

do it but do it well. please do not pref me for dense larp v larp rounds if you are incapable of collapsing – most of the times, i will not be able to adjudicate these debates as well as you want me to. weighing is your friend, collapsing is your significant other. i loved recutting larp ev and reading the recuttings in the 1nc/1ar, so do with that knowledge what you want.

taken from ben waldman: "i'm pro-spin but anti-lying, know the difference."

actual policy

i go to wake forest and believe in the big tent method to a max - do with that what you may. basically do whatever. all the k stuff and ld larp stuff above applies. i love framework v k aff debates with my whole heart. no rvis lol.

cx

apparently i can be "dicky" in cx, be that what it may. if that's your thing, go off, i don't care. the exception being if you are a circuit debater debating a novice/someone with vastly less experience than you. in that instance, be nice- it'll hurt your speaks otherwise. being "shady" is fine. i passively listen (ie, i'll be on facebook) but i won't actually pay attention unless you tell me i should.

speaks

i currently average a 28.739849624 (19 rounds)

28.5 is average. they go up and down from there. "material" speaks boosters are probably very capitalistic in nature, hence my discomfort in offering them.

i'll disclose numerical speaks if asked.

extra

junior year aff wiki: https://hsld19.debatecoaches.org/American%20Heritage%20Boca%20Delray/tanguturi%20Aff

junior year neg wiki:https://hsld19.debatecoaches.org/American%20Heritage%20Boca%20Delray/tanguturi%20Neg

senior year aff wiki:https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/American%20Heritage%20Boca%20Delray/tanguturi%20Aff

senior year neg wiki:https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/American%20Heritage%20Boca%20Delray/tanguturi%20Neg

*jf junior year and senior year is the most accurate