Darnov,+Doron

[last updated for Harvard 2018]

[I find myself re-writing this on a fairly frequent basis. **If you've read it recently, you may want to read it again**: you might find that whatever pref you assign me is slightly higher or lower than whatever you last gave me. Turns out that expressing one's orientation to LD debate in a way that's comprehensive, clear, and accurate can sometimes be a bit tricky. I think this is particularly true in my case because my opinion on certain norms within LD tend to shift slightly (or even radically) with each tournament I attend.]

I coach LD at Millburn High School (NJ). Here are a few things that might be helpful if you're doing prefs or if I'm about to judge one of your rounds:

__Speed__ I was not blessed with very fast ears. In fact, I would say I have rather slow ears. Nearly a decade in debate has somewhat helped me ameliorate this, but I nonetheless probably have a lower threshold for speed than most people who frequently judge on the national circuit. This doesn't mean that I dislike speed. I actually prefer rounds that are somewhat brisk; I tend to find things more exciting that way, and I find that it opens the round to much more substantial, intricate, and nuanced conversations. But you should know that I simply struggle with top-level speed and **if you don't slow down for author names and very important arguments/ tags, then I'm not going to catch everything.**

__K Debate__ I prefer k debates to any other kind of round. I'm familiar with most arguments that K debaters read, and have read many of the books from which these arguments are carded. That doesn't mean you should assume I'm familiar with your particular K or the authors that appear within it: even if I already understand an argument, I'll reward debaters who clearly articulate critical positions with high speaks. I appreciate when K debaters give me very specific framing arguments; don't just tell me that "the ROB is to vote for the debater who best performatively resists the logic of capital"--I will want to know precisely what it means to "performatively resist the logic of capital" within the context of the debate round. If you aren't precise about what kinds of performance or methods your ROB endorses, then it can become very difficult for me to weigh your offense--especially if I'm judging two k debaters in the same round and both debaters read a similar/same ROB.

I think the solution to most K vs LARP rounds is predicated on which debater wins the pre vs post-fiat layering debate, so if you want to win with any kind of discourse K against a LARP position, don't concede arguments as to why post-fiat impacts come first.

__Policy/LARP stuff__ I like these arguments a lot also. I appreciate that they allow debaters to learn very detailed and specific information about a diverse array of political programs, issues, and institutions. But to reiterate the converse of what I've already written above, I think the solution to most K vs LARP rounds is predicated on which debater wins the pre vs post-fiat layering debate, so if you want to win with any kind of LARP argument against a K, don't concede arguments as to why pre-fiat impacts come first.

__Theory/T/Tricks__ I've especially re-written this section of my paradigm quite often. Contrary to popular belief, I really don't intrinsically hate these kinds of arguments, but you should know that I have a very limited understanding of how to evaluate them. Unless a shell is just straight up dropped and extended, I'm probably not going to be comfortable voting on it because I probably won't feel that I really understand how arguments within the shell function or interact with each other. This means that I don't really enjoy evaluating theory rounds. But what I enjoy even less than evaluating theory rounds is debaters who don't read my paradigm, run theory, lose the round because I don't understand how to evaluate their argument, and then become upset because they feel they've been victimized by bad judging. So please, if you're going to spend the nc/nr reading 3 theory shells regardless of what I write here, please strike me--otherwise this is not going to be very much fun for any of us.

__Performance__ I only have limited experience judging these kinds of rounds, but I do think it's something I'd like to see more of. If you're going to read a performance piece, however, then there are a couple things I think you should know. **__First__**, make sure that you've practiced reading it and can deliver a compelling performance. If I think your performance seems boring or lazy, I'm not going to vote for you. This hasn't been a problem so far--I've been very impressed with the quality of the performances I've seen to this point, but I nonetheless think this is worth mentioning. In other words, don't read a performance if you're doing so as an excuse to not prepare case arguments. __**Second**__, I do think the performance should articulate a reason why you should get my ballot. This doesn't necessarily have to be in your first speech (though I'd prefer if it is), but I think it definitely needs to be in your second speech. Tell me why reading the performance means that I vote for you. Reading a performance typically means you will be conceding lots of (but probably not all) line-by-line arguments, so although I might be very happily persuaded to vote against the flow, you should tell me why doing so would be a good norm or precedent for debate. If you don't tell me why your performance justifies ignoring/ voting against the flow--and if this reason isn't articulated in your last speech--I will probably have a difficult time voting for you.

__**reasons you might want to strike** **me/ things that make me feel angry just typing about them**__ -I think debaters flashing cases to each other is a good precedent, but I don't want to be in the email chain. If you're going too fast for me to flow by ear and don't slow down when I clear you, then I'm simply not going to flow because __**I refuse to flow the round from your speech doc**__. **You can drastically mitigate the chance of this happening if you slow down for author names and give me clear signposting when you move to a new part of the flow.** Because I just wrote this in my paradigm in bold print, I expect that you've seen it. If you're reading so fast for such a long time that you literally cannot look up for even one second to see if your judge is still tuned in to your speech, then I'm probably not very interested in voting for you. Effective communication includes paying attention to body language (especially when body language is as simple as not typing and making an annoyed face at you for 6-7 minutes). I am amenable to changing this policy for elims, so it's worth asking if I want to be on the email chain.

-I used to be flexible about this next one, but when your prep time ends you should be ready to send your speech doc to your opponent. You have 4 minutes of prep, so I'm tired of waiting 3-5 minutes between every speech (after you've ended prep) so you can compile the speech doc and send it. __**If you aren't ready to begin your speech, you're still prepping.**__

__Other/misc__ -I try to evaluate rounds by taking the path of least intervention, so give me a strong ballot story that explains why you're winning. Tell me what my RFD should look like if I'm justifying voting for you. If it's an easy RFD (and accurate to my flow) I will almost certainly vote for you. I do, however, get kind of annoyed when debaters say things like "Extend x card/ argument, THAT'S IT, ROUND OVER, SIGN THE BALLOT RIGHT NOW." I don't think this is effective or persuasive rhetoric for pretty much any human being. If I sign the ballot during one of your speeches, it's probably not going to be for the debater you want me to vote for... -With that said, if you're consistently rude/ obnoxious to your opponent, I'm going to look for any way to vote against you that I can possibly justify. Hint: I promise I'll be able to find one. I'm not going to think you're perceptually dominant, I'm just going to think that I don't want to vote for you. -Speaker points are usually between 27 and 29. Below a 27 means there was a substantial issue in terms of strategy or preparedness. 28.6 or above means I think you have a chance to break. 29 means I think you //should// break. 29.5 or above means you delivered one of the best debate performances I've seen at the tournament. 30 means you've delivered one of the best debate performances I've seen in my 22 years of life on this Earth. I give out 29's and 29.5's fairly frequently, and usually one or two 30's per debate season.

You can email me at DoronDarnov@gmail.com with anything else.

Happy Debating!