Nag,+Nikhil

Nikhil Nag University of Pennsylvania ‘15 Conflicts: Mountain View/Los Altos, Scarsdale, Harker Last Updated: 2/3/16

1. I haven't judged competitive LD in a couple of years (although I //have// judged a large number of PF rounds over the years through Penn for Youth Debate...). That cuts both ways -- any political affiliations I may have had are gone (particularly since the vintage NSD crowd has more or less vanished), but I'm likely less familiar with topic-specific issues. Rest assured, I'm still the same (semi-)competent human being that cleared at the TOC a few short years ago. 2. I should be fine with your rate of delivery. That said, if I'm judging you in one of the first two rounds of the tournament, please at least start your speech slowly just to be safe. 3. I hear role of the ballot arguments are in vogue these days. I'm happy to evaluate these, as I am to evaluate any genuine attempt at substantive debate, but do require that they generate some form of a decision calculus (explained below). 4. I'm impressed by smart, analytic arguments that suggest that you're a human being instead of a card-reading automaton. I do not default to assuming that cards are better arguments than analytic arguments. 5. The entirety of the paradigm below still holds (although you may want to play it safe by going a bit slower during the tournament's first round or so). 6. I still enjoy judging (for now, at least...), so I'm looking forward to getting back in the game!
 * Berkeley Updates:**

I debated at Mountain View High School for four years, and graduated in 2012. I was primarily competitive on the national circuit.
 * The Background **

Absent argumentation, I assume the affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution true, and the negative must prove the negation of the resolution. I assume that "prove" requires an offensive argument. __All arguments must link to some form of a decision calculus to have any bearing on how I vote.__ Extensions need a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I believe in terminal defense (it’s absurd to think that people should give credence to a claim for the sole reason that someone uttered it), but in order for me to grant a debater terminal defense on an argument, that debater must tell me why the defense is terminal in nature. I will strive to objectively evaluate the round and (with certain caveats) defer to issues as decided in the debate. Given that I will be flowing on a laptop, __rate of delivery will not be an issue.__ However, if a debater is unclear to the degree that I cannot understand what is being said, I will not consider the arguments that debater made while speaking incomprehensibly in my decision. I will only vote for arguments that I understand as justifying the ballot. I do not have any preconceived “thresholds” for any arguments (this includes framework arguments, theory, etc.). The following outlines my specific defaults, preferences, and ideological stances on certain issues (the colloquial nature of text below explains the shift to second person pronouns/verb forms).
 * The Ballot **

I’m very comfortable evaluating debates on the utilitarian level and often enjoy “LARP” debates. Contrary to popular belief, I actually really like developed plan vs. counterplan debates with lots of excellent evidence and evidence comparison, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll give debaters reading utilitarian frameworks some sort of advantage on the framework debate. I will assume that counterplans are dispositional unless additional clarification is given. I also like judging critical arguments, or arguments derived from continental philosophy, and often think that they make debates more exciting. That being said, critical impacts must link to a justified framework.
 * The LARP **

Although I had wished that this wouldn't be an issue, the fact that I’ve judged numerous rounds that have featured egregious misrepresentation of evidence has prompted me to add my thoughts about unethical evidence practices. Unethical evidence practices include but are not limited to: severely mistagging evidence, blatantly citing a source incorrectly (e.g., reading a definition of one word as the definition of another word), and fabricating evidence. __If I discover that any unethical evidence practices were utilized during the round, the offending party will lose the round with 1 speaker point.__ This is not meant to be a personal attack on anyone in particular, but rather to be a warning to anyone who decides it’s a good idea to read miscut evidence in front of me. If I think something’s fishy, I will not hesitate to call for evidence. Finally, evidence without at least a minimal citation (author name, article title, date) will not be considered in my decision.
 * The Obligatory Evidence Ethics Section **

I view theory as a necessary and desirable practice in debate. __I default to viewing theory and topicality as issues of competing interpretations, but am open to adopting reasonability__ if clear parameters are given as to what counts as a “reasonable” interpretation. I will only vote on theory or topicality arguments that are in 4-point shell form (interpretation, violation, standards, voter). This means paragraph theory is “no bueno” (unless it’s extended as a four-part shell in the 1AR). As far as voters go, I find myself firmly in the camp that believes that fairness and education are important. That being said, I’m surprised to find myself persuaded by new, innovative voters such as critical thinking, advocacy skills, and deep learning. While the RVI is not my favorite argument, I will evaluate it like any other argument if it is made. Please do not claim that you can win by “turning theory” or reading an “offensive counter-interpretation” with an unwarranted plank (there are conceivable offensive counter-interpretations that are adequately warranted but I’ve rarely seen debaters construct such counter-interpretations) – you need an RVI if you’d like me to vote off of responses to a shell. I am also willing to vote on theory that indicts practices that occurred outside of the round I’m judging, such as disclosure theory, coin flip theory, spectator theory, and the like.
 * The Theory and Topicality **


 * The Random Idiosyncrasies **
 * “Analysis” is defined by Merriam Webster's Dictionary as "a careful study of something to learn about its parts, what they do, and how they are related to each other". So, before you go about ranting about how your “Jenkins analysis” is “on fire” or how the “1AR’s analysis on X question” is “fantastic", make sure you’re using the word correctly. If you’re not, you’ll probably lose speaker points and credibility.
 * What’s the difference between a warrant and an internal warrant? If you don’t know (I certainly don’t), just extend your “warrant” and spare yourself some embarrassment.
 * __ I don’t do “implicit counter-interpretations” – if a competing interpretations paradigm is won and you don’t have a counter-interpretation (that you proceed to win)/make "I meet" arguments (that you proceed to win), you lose. __
 * I almost never call for analytic arguments. So, make sure to clearly articulate what your analytic arguments (especially T/theory interpretations). If it’s your fault that I didn’t get an argument down, I’m perfectly comfortable telling you that in my RFD.
 * __ Telling me “it's in your paradigm, so you should vote this way” is a good strategy in front of me, assuming you are correct. __
 * If you have stapled your case and refuse to tear out the staples when your opponent asks you to pass pages, you will lose 2 speaker points.
 * I don't like when people blur the pre-fiat/post-fiat distinction. Examples of this practice include but aren’t limited to arguments that claim that skepticism takes out theory, arguments that claim that your opponent’s skeptical argument means that you can sign the ballot because there are no moral rules, and arguments that say your opponent as a human being endorses obviously bad things as a consequence of arguments they’re running.
 * I’m very easy to read. If you look up, you’ll be able to know if I despise or agree with an argument you’re making. Adapting to my nonverbal reactions is often a good idea.
 * I reserve the right to apply a subjective “gut check". I will not agonize over a messy round just to artificially make up a flow-based decision (although I’ve been able to do so in all but one of the many rounds I've judged).

Given how low my speaker point totals have been in the past, __I’ve decided to “curve up” speaker points__ so debaters I judge aren’t placed at a disadvantage. As such, the average round will now receive a 27. The lower end of my speaker point distribution will probably move up (significantly), so you don’t need to worry about getting a 23 unless you’re truly atrocious. Speaker points are awarded based on how much I enjoy your performance. This means that speaker points are not lifetime achievement awards. You can, however, get better speaker points by ending your speech early if you know you have already won the round (for example, you don’t need to use all 6 minutes of your NR if your opponent drops theory – I will give you some sort of visual cue to stop talking), showing swagger/personality instead of being a monotone robot, and making the round engaging by introducing an unusually interesting or counterintuitive argument. Debaters who have fun and make the round enjoyable for all parties in the room are often pleasantly surprised by their marks.
 * The Speaker Points **

If any of the preceding makes you think that I have altogether lost my marbles, I encourage you to give me the old strikerooo; of course, drunken rage, angry sobbing, and barely-concealed disdain are all available alternatives, but I must say that I would much prefer the more dignified anonymity of your strike.
 * The Conclusion **