Pendse,+Ruchita

I debated in Lincoln-Douglas debate for Mountain View High School (MVLA) on the local and national circuits for four years, and was in a couple bid rounds my junior and senior years. I’m conflicted for Mountain View and Los Altos High Schools. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before round or email me at rpendse101@gmail.com.

Short version/Overview: I don't judge often, so my flowing skills for speed aren't as good as they used to be. I’m not saying you need to slow down substantially, but you do need to make more of an effort to be very clear when saying author’s names and to emphasize key parts or your argument. I will yell clear if you’re unclear and slow if you’re just going too fast. I will say it twice before your speaks start getting affected. In terms of argumentation, I’m open to all types of argumentation, but I will not evaluate patently false arguments, even if dropped, nor will I vote on arguments I don’t understand, so if you’re running a K based on dense literature that I’m not familiar with, you’ll need to be extremely clear. I also don’t evaluate fairness is not important arguments- feel free to convince me to drop the argument but don’t tell me fairness is not important or you’ll risk a rather unfair decision. Feel free to run topicality, theory, RVI’s, meta-ethics, good weighing, and not overly technical policy-style arguments. Good cross-ex and **argument comparison** will increase your speaks, and sloppy and sketchy debate or lack of clarity will lower them. I also want to hear complete **extensions including warrants** for your arguments. Please come to the round on-time and preflowed, be courteous and honest, and have fun!

Evaluative paradigm: Absent any arguments made by the debaters, I default to the best justifications paradigm, which functions similarly to truth-testing except I consider the quality of justification as well as its strength of link (the aff’s burden being to justify accepting the resolution as true, and the neg’s to justify accepting it as false). This means that even if your 7 step link story to nuclear war is conceded, I won't automatically vote on the impact. Quality of extensions also factors into my strength of link considerations. I am happy to use other paradigms if you justify them in round.

Speed/Clarity I don't judge often, so my flowing skills for speed aren't as good as they used to be. I’m not saying you need to slow down substantially, but you do need to make more of an effort to be very clear when saying author’s names and to emphasize key parts or your argument. I will yell clear if you’re unclear and slow if you’re just going too fast. I will say it twice before your speaks start getting affected

Framework: I like seeing a well-developed framework debate with nuanced arguments and responses. I’m familiar with most of the ‘mainstream’ ethical and metaethical literature, but this is not an excuse to have missing links in your framework. Often, the framework debate can be the tipping point for the ballot, so please try to resolve it as well as possible, even when that means spending a sizable amount of time on it.

Policy argumentation: Feel free to run Ks, DAs, CPs, etc. The only thing to keep in mind is that I am really not familiar with the critical literature, so it’s extremely important to be very clear. It’s probably harder to get me to vote on a K than the average judge simply because of my reluctance to vote for something I don’t understand, but if you are confident in your ability to be clear and explain things thoroughly, especially in your extensions, you should definitely go for it. But please remember to re-explain each warrant in your extensions.

Theory: I don’t like unnecessary theory debate, so running a shell for something stupid certainly won’t win you points with me. However, I definitely appreciate a well-developed theory debate and probably have a slightly lower threshold than the average judge to pulling the trigger on theory. I default to a reasonability paradigm but it’s extremely easy to justify why I should evaluate the theory debate under competing interpretations. I’m inclined to view theory as a two-way street, so telling me why there shouldn’t be an RVI will be a slightly uphill battle (which only means you need to have really solid reasons-I will still definitely evaluate everything you say). The debater looking for the RVI needs to provide reasons why I should vote on it. Multiple shells should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. I also don’t evaluate ‘fairness is not important’ arguments- feel free to convince me to drop the argument but don’t tell me fairness is not important or you’ll risk a rather unfair decision.

Argument Comparison! On all levels of the debate, nuanced comparison of arguments is absolutely key, or you leave it up to me to decide what is more important. This also means I, like every other judge, appreciate developed weighing. I’m inclined to be a teeny bit lenient with how developed the weighing is in the 1AR and 2AR, but I still want to see it happening beyond just the “I outweigh on magnitude!” level. There is no excuse for a lack of NR weighing.

Speaks I consider quality of argumentation, quality of clash, strategic vision, cross-examination, and clarity. Make sure you’re engaging your opponent’s arguments and being comparative both on the framework and offense level. Positions that demonstrate careful construction and strategic vision are likely to be rewarded, but this doesn’t exclude good stock cases. Blippy, dishonest, or evasive strategies or strategies that rely on simply “out-teching” your opponent (especially if your opponent is less experienced than you are) will lose you speaks. Big-picture debate and prioritizing layers of the debate, especially in later rebuttals, is much better for good speaks than blazing through the line-by-line and re-extending 50 arguments. Humor is always appreciated, but there’s a line between funny and being an ass. Do not cross it. I prefer not to disclose speaks during the RFD, but if you are dying to know you can find me after the round.

*special thanks to Max McCarthy for allowing me to borrow from his paradigm where appropriate/accurate.