Nikhil Nag

University of Pennsylvania ‘15

Conflicts: Mountain View

Last Updated: 4/13/2020

TOC Updates:

1. I should be fine with your rate of delivery. That said, if I'm judging you in one of the first two rounds of the tournament, please at least start your speech slowly just to be safe. For full disclosure, my primary involvement with debate has come through the Bay Area UDL for the last several years. I promise I'm still a smart, thinking person that cleared at TOC twice during my debating career.

2. I hear role of the ballot arguments are in vogue these days. I'm happy to evaluate these, as I am to evaluate any genuine attempt at substantive debate, but do require that they generate some form of a decision calculus (explained below).

3. I'm impressed by smart, analytic arguments that suggest that you're a human being instead of a card-reading automaton. I do not default to assuming that cards are better arguments than analytic arguments (unless you're making an empirical claim, etc.).

4. The entirety of the paradigm below still holds, though I'm likely going to a bit more generous with speaker points given the expected caliber of competition.

The Background

I debated at Mountain View High School for four years, and graduated in 2012. I was primarily competitive on the national circuit.

The Ballot

Absent argumentation, I assume the affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution true, and the negative must prove the negation of the resolution. I assume that "prove" requires an offensive argument. All arguments must link to some form of a decision calculus to have any bearing on how I vote. Extensions need a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I believe in terminal defense (it’s absurd to think that people should give credence to a claim for the sole reason that someone uttered it), but in order for me to grant a debater terminal defense on an argument, that debater must tell me why the defense is terminal in nature. I will strive to objectively evaluate the round and (with certain caveats) defer to issues as decided in the debate. Given that I will be flowing on a laptop, rate of delivery will not be an issue. However, if a debater is unclear to the degree that I cannot understand what is being said, I will not consider the arguments that debater made while speaking incomprehensibly in my decision. I will only vote for arguments that I understand as justifying the ballot. I do not have any preconceived “thresholds” for any arguments (this includes framework arguments, theory, etc.). The following outlines my specific defaults, preferences, and ideological stances on certain issues (the colloquial nature of text below explains the shift to second person pronouns/verb forms).

The LARP

I’m very comfortable evaluating debates on the utilitarian level and often enjoy “LARP” debates. Contrary to popular belief, I actually really like developed plan vs. counterplan debates with lots of excellent evidence and evidence comparison, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll give debaters reading utilitarian frameworks some sort of advantage on the framework debate. I will assume that counterplans are dispositional unless additional clarification is given. I also like judging critical arguments, or arguments derived from continental philosophy, and often think that they make debates more exciting. That being said, critical impacts must link to a justified framework.

The Obligatory Evidence Ethics Section

Although I had wished that this wouldn't be an issue, the fact that I’ve judged numerous rounds that have featured egregious misrepresentation of evidence has prompted me to add my thoughts about unethical evidence practices. Unethical evidence practices include but are not limited to: severely mistagging evidence, blatantly citing a source incorrectly (e.g., reading a definition of one word as the definition of another word), and fabricating evidence. If I discover that any unethical evidence practices were utilized during the round, the offending party will lose the round with 1 speaker point. This is not meant to be a personal attack on anyone in particular, but rather to be a warning to anyone who decides it’s a good idea to read miscut evidence in front of me. If I think something’s fishy, I will not hesitate to call for evidence. Finally, evidence without at least a minimal citation (author name, article title, date) will not be considered in my decision.

The Theory and Topicality

I view theory as a necessary and desirable practice in debate. I default to viewing theory and topicality as issues of competing interpretations, but am open to adopting reasonability if clear parameters are given as to what counts as a “reasonable” interpretation. I will only vote on theory or topicality arguments that are in 4-point shell form (interpretation, violation, standards, voter). This means paragraph theory is “no bueno” (unless it’s extended as a four-part shell in the 1AR). As far as voters go, I find myself firmly in the camp that believes that fairness and education are important. That being said, I’m surprised to find myself persuaded by new, innovative voters such as critical thinking, advocacy skills, and deep learning. While the RVI is not my favorite argument, I will evaluate it like any other argument if it is made. Please do not claim that you can win by “turning theory” or reading an “offensive counter-interpretation” with an unwarranted plank (there are conceivable offensive counter-interpretations that are adequately warranted but I’ve rarely seen debaters construct such counter-interpretations) – you need an RVI if you’d like me to vote off of responses to a shell. I am also willing to vote on theory that indicts practices that occurred outside of the round I’m judging, such as disclosure theory, coin flip theory, spectator theory, and the like.

The Random Idiosyncrasies

• “Analysis” is defined by Merriam Webster's Dictionary as "a careful study of something to learn about its parts, what they do, and how they are related to each other". So, before you go about ranting about how your “Jenkins analysis” is “on fire” or how the “1AR’s analysis on X question” is “fantastic", make sure you’re using the word correctly. If you’re not, you’ll probably lose speaker points and credibility.
• What’s the difference between a warrant and an internal warrant? If you don’t know (I certainly don’t), just extend your “warrant” and spare yourself some embarrassment.
• I don’t do “implicit counter-interpretations” – if a competing interpretations paradigm is won and you don’t have a counter-interpretation (that you proceed to win)/make "I meet" arguments (that you proceed to win), you lose.
• I almost never call for analytic arguments. So, make sure to clearly articulate what your analytic arguments (especially T/theory interpretations). If it’s your fault that I didn’t get an argument down, I’m perfectly comfortable telling you that in my RFD.
• Telling me “it's in your paradigm, so you should vote this way” is a good strategy in front of me, assuming you are correct.
• If you have stapled your case and refuse to tear out the staples when your opponent asks you to pass pages, you will lose 2 speaker points.
• I don't like when people blur the pre-fiat/post-fiat distinction. Examples of this practice include but aren’t limited to arguments that claim that skepticism takes out theory, arguments that claim that your opponent’s skeptical argument means that you can sign the ballot because there are no moral rules, and arguments that say your opponent as a human being endorses obviously bad things as a consequence of arguments they’re running.
• I’m very easy to read. If you look up, you’ll be able to know if I despise or agree with an argument you’re making. Adapting to my nonverbal reactions is often a good idea.
• I reserve the right to apply a subjective “gut check". I will not agonize over a messy round just to artificially make up a flow-based decision (although I’ve been able to do so in all but one of the many rounds I've judged).

The Speaker Points

Given how low my speaker point totals have been in the past, I’ve decided to “curve up” speaker points so debaters I judge aren’t placed at a disadvantage. As such, the average round will now receive a 28.5. The lower end of my speaker point distribution will probably move up (significantly), so you don’t need to worry about getting a 23 unless you’re truly atrocious. Speaker points are awarded based on how much I enjoy your performance. This means that speaker points are not lifetime achievement awards. You can, however, get better speaker points by ending your speech early if you know you have already won the round (for example, you don’t need to use all 6 minutes of your NR if your opponent drops theory – I will give you some sort of visual cue to stop talking), showing swagger/personality instead of being a monotone robot, and making the round engaging by introducing an unusually interesting or counterintuitive argument. Debaters who have fun and make the round enjoyable for all parties in the room are often pleasantly surprised by their marks.

The Conclusion

If any of the preceding makes you think that I have altogether lost my marbles, I encourage you to give me the old strikerooo; of course, rage, angry sobbing, and barely-concealed disdain are all available alternatives, but I must say that I would much prefer the more dignified anonymity of your strike.

Hi, my name is Allen Nesbitt. You may add me to your chain at ahnesbitt@gmail.com. My pronouns are he/him.

I enjoy debate strategy. I am probably on the more traditional side in that I like cases with plans on the aff. That said, I will consider an argument so long as it is coherent and well reasoned. I will weigh a kritik that makes solid strategic sense in the round. I believe that K affs or affs that do not have plans have a high bar to cross on T.

I enjoy the clash inherent in competitive policy debate.

I value creative and new arguments.

I am fine with speed and tag team cx. Speak only as quickly as you can speak clearly. Go slower and OUTLINE your analytics!

I debated HS in Kansas for four years and today I own a progressive political consulting firm based in SF and DC and specialized in opposition research (oppo research = writing 1ac and 1nc blocks about political candidates and issues).

https://www.nesbittresearch.com/about/allen-nesbitt/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/allennesbitt

Email for sharing evidence: Anne.c.peckham@gmail.com

Debate & judging experience: I was a policy debater for Lexington High School in MA from 2000-2004. I coached and judged for Oyster-Adams in DC in from 2016-2017.

I've judged at a couple policy tournaments since 2016. Please don't assume any knowledge on this year's resolution / subject matter / typical cases.

I'm generally ok with spreading as long as you're clear, but appreciate if you can slow down a bit more in the rebuttals and help crystalize things.

Judging preferences: Fine with any arguments that are explained clearly. Please explain for me why your argument / position is better than the other team's, and what I should be voting on.

I appreciate when you give me a roadmap at the top of your speech, and for you to go line-by-line in addressing the other team's arguments. In the later rebuttals please step back and explain for me why you should win using impact analysis or another framework for how I should be making my decision.

I think debate should be fair and educational, and I am fine voting on Topicality or theory, but please explain it to me rather than just asserting it's a voting issue.

Please be respectful of each other in cx and in your characterization of the other team / their arguments.

Have fun!

POLICY Paradigm:

I'm Juan Carlos, a Political Scientist with a Master's in Economics and Business. My primary areas of expertise revolve around comparative politics, international relations, and macroeconomics, with a particular focus on the Iberian Peninsula and Latin America. I have conducted research in Spain, Portugal, and Mexico, and my current research projects are centered on post-industrial economies and the triggers of regime change in Latin America.

In the context of policy debate, I encourage the concept of CLASH, emphasizing the quality of arguments presented by both sides. Any argument is acceptable as long as it directly relates to the central theme of the debate. If you intend to introduce theory or debate multiple scenarios, it is essential to streamline your main arguments early in the debate. While speed is permitted, it should not come at the cost of clarity; you must thoroughly explain your arguments, and I will not vote for a one-liner that you breeze through in a matter of seconds.

Framework: When advocating for a particular framework in your debate, you should provide a comprehensive analysis of why your chosen framework offers a better option for policy debate. I do not appreciate framework arguments used solely to consume time or run multiple off-cases without a strong rationale; I rarely find such strategies convincing.

Kritiks: I am open to voting on Kritiks, but I expect a thorough impact analysis and a clear explanation of the alternative proposed by the Kritik.

On the Negative side, I anticipate a careful analysis of the "K," including an impact calculation. On the Affirmative side, I expect you to use your Affirmative case effectively and construct a robust framework argument in support of policy-making.

Counterplans/Permutations/Disadvantages: When presenting counterplans, I expect to see a competing counterplan with a detailed breakdown of the net benefits. I also anticipate a well-articulated disadvantage (DA) that doesn't get triggered by the counterplan. I have never voted for a counterplan presented in isolation. If the Negative team can demonstrate that the Affirmative case worsens the status quo, causing the DA, I appreciate well-argued internal links. While I am generally not a fan of broad, general DAs, a strong discourse on such a DA can change my perspective.

Cons:

• Rude debaters: Maintain decorum and respect during the debate.
• If going paperless, avoid excessive time consumption on flashing; make it quick and efficient.
• Always flow the debate, as not doing so will negatively impact your speaker points.

Pros:

• Display sportsmanship throughout the debate.
• Come well-prepared with your arguments and research.
• Incorporate a sense of humor when appropriate to foster a positive debating atmosphere.

PUBLIC FORUM Paradigm:

Debate Philosophy: In public forum, I prioritize clarity, accessibility, and the ability to engage the audience, as these are crucial elements of this style of debate. Public forum should be an accessible forum for debaters to engage in discussions about current events and policy issues.

Clarity and Accessibility: I place a high value on clarity in public forum debates. Debaters should be able to explain complex concepts in a way that is understandable to a general audience. Speak clearly, avoid excessive jargon, and make sure that your arguments are easily accessible to both the judge and any potential audience members who might not be familiar with debate terminology.

Content Quality: Quality over quantity. In public forum, I value well-reasoned, well-evidenced arguments over a barrage of content. Debaters should focus on a limited number of key arguments and provide strong evidence to support their claims. Less is often more in this format.

Crossfire: Crossfire can be a valuable part of public forum debates. I encourage debaters to use crossfire to clarify, challenge, and engage with their opponents' arguments. However, I expect crossfire to be conducted with respect and professionalism.

Summary and Final Focus: The summary and final focus speeches are critical in public forum. These speeches should provide clear overviews of the key arguments, voters, and weighing mechanisms in the round. These speeches should not introduce new arguments but should crystallize the debate and explain why your side should win.

Use of Evidence: Use evidence to support your arguments, but make sure the evidence is relevant, credible, and contextualized within the context of the debate. Evidence should be cited clearly, and it should be used to strengthen your claims, not overwhelm your opponents with sheer quantity.

Impact Analysis: Debaters should clearly articulate the impacts of their arguments and why they should matter to the judge and the audience. It's not just about presenting arguments; it's about explaining why those arguments are significant in the context of the resolution.

Framework and Fair Play: Public forum is typically a more accessible form of debate, and I appreciate debaters who maintain a fair and balanced approach to the debate. Playing by the rules, respecting time limits, and adhering to the format is essential.

Cons:

• Rude or disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated.
• Avoid excessive use of jargon and complex terminology that may alienate general audiences.
• Disregarding time limits or rules can negatively affect your speaker points.

Pros:

• Maintain sportsmanship and professionalism throughout the debate.
• Come prepared with a thorough understanding of the topic and strong arguments.
• Foster a positive and engaging atmosphere by using persuasive speaking skills.
• Adapt your style and arguments to the audience, ensuring accessibility and engagement.

I Debated in high school for 3 years

Ld debater in Chabot college

parli adapter

1 and half of public form

I am on the national team for wrestling

Graduated in 2018

I prefer a policy debater

if you do a performance I am fine with it

I am fine with the role of the ballot

I am okay K debates but if you run a K AFF it has better connect with you in some way. Like if you run neoliberalism you better have a passion for why it's bad and if you run ain't-black you better be black or have a valid reason for running it. If you somehow fail to do this then you lose 2 sp and mostly your opponent will pick up on this and turn it against you and you will lose the debate

If you are going to run T iT has to be real and what I mean is if you run there stealing your ground and there no emotion you lose sp and also if you say their aff is not topical or over topical please explain and finally if you run T and it is on topic and you just decided just to waste time you lose 1 point

I LIKE NUCLEAR WAR ARGUMENT

AND GLOBAL WARMING

add me to chain mail contact.walterwilliams@gmail.com