Esfandiari,+Pardis

Pardis Esfandiari UMiami LD/PF/Interp (lols)


 * Articulation and Clarity::** If I don't catch a tag or two, no worries. But if I have no idea what you are saying for a protracted portion of your speech, I am unlikely to want to reconstruct what you said after the debate. This has happened more times than I find acceptable for a communications activity. If you're not sure, **look up while you talk**, I'll usually be sending pretty strong signals if I find you unintelligible. There is nothing more frustrating than two guys/girls arguing over some textual intricacy that they have both read on a piece of paper while I sit there wondering what the VC was. My understanding will benefit you much more than the 8 seconds of your speech that you lose, I promise. Furthermore, if you are using a laptop, make sure that it is sufficiently to the side so that it does not block my ability to see your face. When the screen is between you and me, my comprehension of what you are saying decreases exponentially.


 * Strategy::** I am likely to default to whichever debater did the better job of debating the key nexus questions in the debate. This doesn’t mean that dropped arguments aren’t important; rather, it means that an argument isn’t dropped if it is answered by the ‘thesis’ or meta-argument of the other team.


 * Referencing::** Just because you read a card doesnt make it true. I find myself assigning zero credit to many more cards than I would expect because they are so truly awful. Don't waste your time or mine reading bad evidence. Debate about the evidence! Good cards are important. Good evidence comparison is more important. Use impacts to your advantage and I'll be on your side.


 * Topicality::** Topicality is about competing interpretations of the topic. However, this does not mean that I think that the negative can win simply by presenting a slightly more limiting or better interpretation than the aff. I find aff “reasonability” arguments relatively persuasive, so long as they are not couched in terms of “our aff is reasonable” but rather “our interpretation of the topic is reasonable,” in so far as it allows for predictable, two-sided debates and a sufficiently limited number of cases. Just because the neg wins that the aff’s interpretation is bigger than theirs doesn’t mean they win. If the neg can win that the aff’s interpretation of the topic allows for a highly unlimited or unpredictable set of cases, then I think they win.


 * General Etiquette::** I actually value this section of this page.

1) Please don't be a jerk. If you want to be aggressive, do so in a non-hostile manner. 2) Please wear clothing that is comfortable and professional. 3) Please shake your opponent(s)' hand before and after the round.