Singh,+Ajay

Hello Debaters, My name is Ajay Singh, and I am a judge for Lincoln Douglas debate. Below is a detailed (perhaps too detailed) description of my philosophy as a Lincoln Douglas debate judge. I look at debate as educational enrichment-I have always found interest in the topics that they come up with (whoever //they// are). In terms of judging, I try to be as objective as possible when evaluating a debate, but I will not support any ridiculous or abusive arguments. Philosophical debates: While Lincoln Douglas debate is a debate of values and often discusses philosophy and morality, I also strongly believe in pragmatism. For this reason, I often do not appreciate dense philosophy such as ontology and especially not moral scepticism or nihilism. No radical groups either, please. Some philosophers that make me wince include Heidegger, Nietzsche, Camus, Rand, Baudrillard and Deepak Chopra. I know the basics of utilitarianism and deontology, but don’t expect me to know the philosophers or hypothetical models, like the veil of ignorance and the categorical imperative (I only know these by name). Don’t talk about the agency of rational entities or revisionary institutionalism unless you can explain it in layman’s terms. Politics: I keep abreast of the political situation. Don’t expect me to know what’s going in Luxembourg, Papua New Guinea, or Mongolia, though. Research on topics: I do not do much research on the topics, but I do keep abreast of current events. If you reference a current situation or phenomenon, I will take note--modern examples are a part of debate and I applaud them. I appreciate stock debaters with good arguments over heavy framework debaters. Speaking: Do not spread, please. I have judged and seen a few rounds where debaters were spreading and I wanted to leave the room and lie down. A part of debate is presentation and articulation of the ideas and arguments you bring to the table. Your speaking should be comprehensible. There is no need to go //too// slow, though. Occasional eye contact is a plus. Do not yell at me or your opponent—we haven’t done anything wrong. Decorum: You should already expect the stock decorum, with both students should be polite and kind and such. Glib or aggressive debaters are fine-just don’t go overboard. Be confident and do not look intimidated! I do not keep time, and I typically don’t like flashing cases. Just ask during prep time or cross examination if you want to look at a source. I don’t like it when you say, “Judge, look at my evidence” when you speak to me or when you say “He is wrong” when you speak of your opponent. Instead, if you want my attention, just say “This is very important.” Extending: Remind me what the card says when you extend it. Flowing: I take notes during the round, but am not necessarily a ‘flow judge’. **__However,__** __If you bring up new arguments in the 2AR, I will know. Do not do this. If you drop an argument and your opponent points that out, I will consider the argument conceded. Do not bring it up again. This includes definitions and framework.__ Theory: Let’s face it: theory is tedious and tiresome for judges. It is often people whining about how someone didn’t flash me their case or how someone can’t run this argument because of time skew. While I do understand that, like other activities, there are rules in debate, the debate itself should focus on the topic presented. Discuss the resolution and its implications—there is plenty to talk about. Do not read theory shells. If an argument is abusive, just point it out, because I will probably have taken note of it as well. Counterplans: I am not fiercely opposed to them. If a negative can find an alternative method of solving a problem or bettering a situation, I will accept it in the round. //However,// I would appreciate if you would discuss the jargon associated with counterplans (Mutual Exclusivity, Permutation) because I only know them by name. Also, do not run counterplans that will radically change the system or return us to the Stone Age. Comical Arguments: I have listened and read arguments about why economic collapse is good, why we need pollution or racism, and other nonsense. I have also read arguments about how affirming or negating will lead to one thing, which will lead to another thing, which will lead to another, which will lead to nuclear war and extinction. I do not approve of either approaches. Empirics: Most of the time, I evaluate empirics above other things. I have to consider what is actually happening before what ought to happen. Kritiks: Do not do them, please. I stopped listening to kritiks a long time ago. Speaker Points: Don’t expect a 20 or lower. I know that judges misunderstand what speaker points are-I will give points from the 25-30 range. You probably will get high speaks if you don’t do something that I disapprove of. Feedback and Disclosure: I will give feedback if you ask me to, and will disclose if the tournament lets me (disclosure is important because it provides feedback and allows debaters to improve their cases for the next round). As a final note, I have immense respect for everyone I’ve ever judged or seen in debate, regardless of who won or who lost. I hope that you walk away from the round learning something new and with the knowledge that you did your best, and that is all that matters.
 * Living Wage Update**: Just to get an idea of who I am as a judge, when I was first made aware of the living wage topic, I anticipated several arguments about automation and technological innovation. Additionally, on the affirmative side, I felt that there would be a lot of arguments about poverty and unemployment. On the negative side, I felt that there would be arguments about incentivizing people to work, economic arguments, and the possibility of outsourcing.