Khushi Afre

(she/her) - Northview (AI, AY) '21 - khushiafre25@gmail.com

Background: I had 6 TOC bids in policy debate my senior year and 11 career bid rounds.

General: Do whatever you want but if it helps, I really like the K (mostly familiar with afropessimism, axiology, psychoanalysis, any iteration of academy, coercive mimeticism, cybernetics, settler colonialism, biopolitics, and capitalism) and I think clash debates are the most fun and interesting to watch and participate in. That being said, I think it's important judges stay tabula rasa and I try to honor that to the best of my abilities.

I'll pretty much vote on anything so long as it's ethical and debated well.

UPDATE: 2/14/2020, re: Harvard tournament - This will be my second tournament judging Congress; I judged previously at last month's Barkley Forum at Emory. In other years, here at Harvard, I've judged both PF and LD.

I have judged both PF and LD, on local circuits and at the Harvard National tournament, for the past three seasons and judged BQ @ the 2018 NSDA Nationals. I'm a former high school (Science) teacher, and love being involved with high schoolers again through Debate.

A few things:

-Although I've been judging for quite awhile now, I began as a parent judge, with no background in debate. After 3 years of judging and parenting a varsity LD debater, my technical knowledge has expanded tremendously, but still has limits. Know that I will judge you technically to the best of my ability. But ultimately, as judges, we are to award the round to the most convincing debater(s). You might have a technically perfect case, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll ultimately actually CONVINCE me.

- I'm not a fan of progressive debate strategies. IMO, spreading is a gimmick, and devalues the essence of debate. If I can't follow what you're saying, you're not communicating with me. And if you aren't communicating, what's the point? So, while a little speed is fine, if you see me stop flowing, you know you've lost me. Similarly I'm not a big fan of counterplans/Ks etc. either. BUT I'm always open to hearing them; sometimes they're awesome! (Just don't pull that if you're a 1st year novice debater going against another newbie. It's no fun to see a 14-yo kid get obliterated in only their second round ever because your varsity teammates shared their cases with you for the purpose of doing just that to your opponent. I've seen it - more than once - and it's really painful to watch and demoralizing for your opponent.)

- I WILL be flowing throughout the debate, so please organize/structure to make that easier for me - i.e. a clearly defined framework and contentions (signposts!), off-time road maps, voters etc.

- I like when opponents challenge evidence during CX, so that we ALL know the info is being accurately and honestly presented. Have your 'cards' ready!

- Typically I won't disclose at the end of the round, but will enter RFDs and speaker notes in Tabroom where I can better organize my thoughts.

- Demonstrating respectful behavior is huge for me. Sighing/eye-rolling behaviors are rude and disrespectful to your opponent. Be very cognizant about coming across as verbally abusive or condescending. Simply having the courage to come into the room and participate in the challenge of debate makes you worthy of MY respect, and your opponent's. I WILL deduct 'speaks' if this is a problem, or if really egregious, I will drop you.

- I'm very relaxed as a judge. I want you to be comfortable in the room with me, and am really proud to have gotten a lot of positive feedback from debaters about that. Introduce yourself. Feel free to joke/laugh. Smiles are great. Remember to have fun and ENJOY the experience!

Typically when I judge (usually PF), I look for:

-How students argue evidence in a proper and effective manner.

-The evidence must be coherent and viable for the situation and deliver evidence in a distinguishable manner.

-Delivery of the evidence must fit the argument properly for the side argued.

-Philosophy argued must be known to the student and not used simply for popular reason or preference.

-Crossfire and cross-analysis of the opponent need to uphold your position and impact your reasoning to further the cause.

-Respect among students no matter what side is argued. When asked a question, give your opponent proper time to argue/defend themselves.

I am a second year parent Judge so fairly new.

I prefer no spreading, at a pace that all can follow. I am very much a more traditional LD judge.

Please give me your voters !! Why you should win. What makes your framework better than your opponents.

No progressive debate ie, Counterplans, K, Theory, DA's, etc. ( not qualified )

About Me: I debated in Varsity LD for three years of my high school career, and I love this activity more than anything else I did during those three years. I was also the captain of the Houston County High School LD Debate Team. However, I also competed in novice PF for half of my novice year, and even won a tournament in it. I love philosophy and read it regularly. My top three are: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and John Rawls. My favorite politician of all history is Bobby Kennedy. I am liberal, but that just means that if you convince me that a conservative policy is even slightly desirable, I will see it as a major accomplishment. I am also part of the LGBT+ community, and take discrimination very seriously. I have no problem voting a debater down for ethical reasons if they say something blatantly discriminatory.

Debate Preferences: I am okay with spreading, but either use voice inflection or slow down while stating contention titles and sources. I judge rounds tabula-rasa style, so if your opponent doesn't counter your claims, as long as your claims aren't obviously false through observation/logic, then your claims still stand. If an argument is not made, it does not exist. PLEASE GIVE VOTERS. I like progressive-style debate (Frameworks, Theory, Kritiks, etc.), but if you are doing PF, plans are prohibited. You are not required to debate in this style, and I would much rather hear a good traditional-style debate than a poor progressive-style debate. Do not assume, if you go the philosophical route, that I know all philosophies, but it is safe to assume that I know how to evaluate standardized, premise-conclusion style arguments. Claim-data-warrant-impact always applies, unless you run that data is meaningless and provide reasoning for that claim. If you provide framework and your opponent turns your case to work against your own framework, you lose. If your opponent supplies framework and you successfully argue that your case better fulfills their framework, you win. Impacts will always be the main RFD unless you successfully run a philosophy stating that impacts are bs. One large impact is better than a few negligible impacts. Snowball effects are still effects as long as you argue why the effect is probable. Education will always be assumed as the main purpose of debate unless otherwise stated. Theory should be in the proper format of A: Interpretation, B: Violation, C: Standard, and D: Voter. Finally, CITATIONS ARE REQUIRED. IF YOU DO NOT PROVIDE CITATIONS, YOU ARE BREAKING THE RULES AND I CANNOT VOTE FOR YOU. I RESERVE EVERY RIGHT TO READ YOUR CASE AFTER THE ROUND IS OVER.

Speaker Points: I do not care if you look at me or not while you speak, but I will count off speaker points if it's obvious that you haven't practiced debating with your case. Three things are very important to me when calculating speaker points. The first is whether you act like you want to be there or not. The second is whether you keep going even if you feel like your losing. The third is whether you are respectful to everyone involved. I do not like quitters, I do not like apathy, and I do not like disrespect. Your attitude towards debate has an effect on other debaters and judges. You should convince them that debate is valuable.

Prep Time: Prep is for prep, not for extra cross. You may ask to read your opponents case during YOUR prep. If you ask for a specific part of the case, then the prep will not start until your opponent finds that part. If you take more than 5 minutes looking for a specific piece of your case asked for by your opponent, I am going to ask you to stop, and that specific piece will not be weighed in round.

LD-Specific: Everything previously stated about framework apllies to values. I love a good value debate as long as it's run well. If you run progressive-style cases, make sure you ACTUALLY know how to run them. Philosophers are not values. You must justify your value and value criterion. Your value criterion should be a more specific idea within your value, and it should serve as the link between your value and your contentions. If your value and value criterion are completely unrelated, I will not vote for you. Value turns are always good, when you run them well. Values and value criterions are not technically required, but some sort of framework always makes a case stronger. Kritiks do not require values, and are sometimes better without them. Plans and CPs require an actor and an impacted party, and agency is very important.

Speed: Do not lose clarity for quantity.

Substantive arguments should be well supported, organization helps the flow. My background is a history/philosophy/psychology/forensics teacher and debate coach. It is important to stay on topic, be concise and to directly address the resolution/topic.

Began judging in autumn 2017. Mostly do PF, but occasionally LD and BQ.

Looking for well-reasoned arguments supported with quotes and evidence. Tend to be wary of observational data that can only show associations, but not causation.

I can listen fairly quickly, but prefer students not to speak too fast. Like direct clear speaking, but not loud.

Generally I feel the "Aff" has the burden of convincing me of their case. If I feel the round is something like a tie, I defer to the "Neg."

I also want each team to tell me under what criteria they should win the case. Something like: "We believe that the scenario that results in a more peaches grown in Georgia should win the round, and we will argue that affirming the Resolution will result in higher peach production."

I am a parent judge - 2020-2021 was my twins' final year as high school debaters, and I usually judged at almost every tournament, so I have been lucky enough to see a bunch of really great rounds. I typically judged PF, but have also judged a fair amount of LD.

I am looking for a DEBATE - not just the best speeches. I will give the win to the team that makes the most compelling case as to why their side is right and/or the opponent is wrong. I tend not to flow every specific point, but rely more on which team's overall argument is stronger. I probably put more weight on cross-ex and final summary arguments than most judges.

I usually am more convinced by a smaller number of really great points that are well defended than a whole bunch of pretty good points (quality of argument versus quantity). I am also looking for the debaters to pay attention to what their opponent says and specifically give a good counter argument to those points.

Shannon Ganey Stevenson - Second Year International Affairs Major at UGA. please call me Shannon.

Experience: I did Lincoln Douglas debate for four years in high school, and for a brief span of time in my Senior Year, was the #1 ranked NSDA LD Debater in the State of Georgia. I was a traditional debater, and still have a preference for traditional debate. As a debater, I knew what I liked and didn't like in a judge, and I want to make sure that you, the debater, understand that whatever outside information or prejudices I have on a subject will not influence my decision on your round. However, blatant lying or excessive manipulation of facts at any point in a round will be met with serious consequences. There is a standard of academic honesty that I will hold you to.

The purpose of debate and what that means for style: The purpose of (high school) debate, to me at least, is to increase your capability to present facts and defend them in a coherent and orderly manner and to increase your understanding, as well as your opponent's and your judge's understanding of the topic, through whatever lens you present and defend. This is a skill that, if you intend to continue your education through college, is integral to your success therein. That said, the reason I prefer traditional debate to theory is that the education gained through the round is about the topic itself, the lenses to approach this topic, and your own capabilities in debating it. My problem with theory shells is that they severely stifle you, your opponent's, and your judge's ability to become more educated on the subjects listed. By creating an arbitrary barrier within the debate that demands being addressed, you have taken away valuable time from your opponent to make and defend their arguments, and have unfairly and abusively shifted the balance of the debate in your favor. For this reason, I will not tolerate theory debate.

Personal Preferences: Harking back to the purpose of debate, I expect coherent, confident, and orderly arrangements of arguments, lines of questioning, and voter framing. I will not tolerate spreading, (there is no justifiable reason to include a prohibitively high amount of information in your construction or arguments that warrants the loss of education from incomprehensibly fast speaking.) ad hominem remarks, (you are supposed to attack ideas, not your opponent. There will be no warning and no exceptions. I will end the round right then and there and you will get 0 speaker points.) or yelling and screaming. (Yes, I have seen it.)

In terms of burden of proof: if you make a claim, I expect you damn well back it up. (Exceptions are made for explicitly common knowledge.

"Triangles have three sides." "WeLl WhAt'S yOuR sOuRcE?"

The Affirmative does in fact have the burden of proof for proposing changing the status quo. The Negative, by default, does not have to propose anything, but still needs evidence to refute the Aff and build up the status quo. We've all heard the "well the neg doesn't even try to fix 'whatever'," argument, and I don't buy it. However, I am open to AFF+ (counter-plan) arguments on the Neg side so long as they are mutually exclusive from the AFF's argument. (There needs to be some fundamental difference between the AFF and AFF+ that doesn't allow the AFf+ to be absorbed by the AFF.) The NEG cannot claim that the AFF is absorbed by their AFF+, otherwise what the literal hell is the point of the debate in the first place.

I do measure the performance of your debate round by your ability to uphold your value-criterion through your accompanying evidence. The evidence alone is useless unless it ties into your lens, which is useless if it has no evidence to support it. Isn't circular logic fun? Some things in life are great in theory and terrible in reality, and others exist and cannot be explained by theory (indivisible goods). There is no "one size fits all" solution for tying your evidence to your value-criterion, so we'll just have to see how it all shakes out in the round. As long as you try to link the two, you should be fine.

Preferences I cannot over-analyze. (Thank you for your patience.)

Don't drop arguments, as you cannot pick them up again. Also, be sure to explain why your opponent dropping one of your arguments is important to the round. Ceded arguments don't inherently carry weight unless you explain why. That is key.

Having 400 contentions and sub-points is lame. I will allow and encourage you (or your opponent) to pick the three most important points of a case and those become the three arguments that are liable to be addressed or dropped. Everything else, except for evidence and definitions, becomes dust in the wind and no longer matters to the debate. (There is of course a subjective limit to when you can invoke this right, and I'll probably nod or shake my head if I think it's the right call.)

Pace yourself and time yourself. (I can keep time if you need it, but not your pace.)

Do not panic. I know that feeling very well. When you panic, you speak faster and less coherently. Take a breath and keep it steady. What you will lose in quantity, will be made up for in quality. I will gesture you to slow down only twice before speaker points start being docked.

Definitions can be important to argue, and can function the same as dropped arguments if not contended. However, changing the interpretation of the topic must be warranted with accompanying evidence to support your argument for such an interpretation.

I will not interrupt you at any point in the round, unless to gesture to slow down, speak clearly, or prematurely terminate the round for violations of proper decorum or academic dishonesty.

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com