Singh,+Deep

**River Hill '13**

 * Background: ** I debated for 4 years in high school and currently debate in college. In high school I was primarily a critical debater. I enjoy hearing debates between any types of arguments, whether it be K vs. K, Policy vs. Policy, or K vs. Policy. At the end of the day, an argument is an argument regardless of what you label it. That being said, no judge is purely tabula rasa. I am more familiar with critical literature, especially concerning post-structuralist philosophy and race theory.

**Meta Level Note:** Do what you are best at. Debate with whatever style you are comfortable and confident with; as a judge my preferences should have little bearing on your strategy and should only serve as guidelines as to how I see certain arguments.

Apart from unethical arguments such as racism good, sexism good, etc. I am open to any and every type of argument. If you want to run some crazy philosophy with tangential relation to the topic, go for it as long as you have solid warrants for doing so. My general point of view is that the more bizarre an argument is, the easier it should be to answer.

1. I flow every speech including cross x and write down both the assertion and warrant. Arguments extended in rebuttal speeches need to have clear warrants in order to be evaluated. If you are on the line by line and have already answered an argument, make sure you flag where so that I know what area to look at. 2. I usually will not call for a lot of evidence (if any at all) after the round unless there is disagreement to what the evidence says. I believe it is the debaters' responsibility to clearly extend warrants made in evidence. Even if you have a really good piece of evidence if I don't have the warrant on my flow I can't evaluate it. 3. Spin of evidence is important -- this is especially important in kritikal and performance debate. I enjoy hearing the high theory condensed and contextualized within the actual debate. Smart analytic arguments are much better than just reading cards. 4. There is always a balance between tech vs. truth -- I find myself leaning towards the truth end of the spectrum just because such arguments are often more persuasive. 5. The first thing I look at when deciding the round is framework and what my role as a judge is -- once those questions are answered I then go on to the actual debate. 6. I once read in a philosophy that "debate is math" -- it most certainly isn't. While line by line and technical skills are undoubtedly important, ethos plays just as large a part in influencing my decision.
 * How I Judge:**


 * Kritiks: ** An alternative is not always necessary. I prefer these arguments to be highly contextualized with the 1AC.


 * Non-traditional Affs:** If the role of the ballot is about competing methodologies, I tend to place less emphasis on the permutation unless the negative's method is clearly not competitive.