Jain,+Hirsh

Hirsh Jain Affiliations: Mission San Jose High, El Cerrito High.

Hello. My name is Hirsh Jain, and I am currently a senior at the University of California, Berkeley. I debated LD for 4 years at Mission San Jose High School in Northern California, competing both locally and nationally. I prefer not to give lengthy paradigms, because my judging philosophy is really quite simple.

1. I normally evaluate the round through the traditional criterial framework. I see the value criterion as a filter for the arguments in the round, informing me as to which arguments ought to play into my decision calculus. Along those lines, the first thing I do when judging is determine who has won the criterion. Debaters are expected to do this by staking out what their burden is in the round, and how the use of a particular criterion is appropriate to determining whether or not the burden has been met. Though this seems quite simple, it is often very difficult to determine who has won the criterial debate due to it being so muddled. Because the criterion is of such significance and is nevertheless often unclear, the debater who is extremely clear about why they are winning this debate is at an extreme advantage. After I determine who has won the criterial debate, I simply evaluate who has better met this standard. If you meet the standard better, you win. 2. I’m totally open to debaters using a mechanism outside of the traditional criterial framework in the round, but if a debater chooses to do so, they ought to supplement their presentation of an alternative “calculus” with a justification as to why it is sufficient / appropriate for a judge to use. 3. I’m okay with speed, so long that it is intelligible. If it is difficult to understand, than it will result in lower speaker points. If done well, it will result in higher speaker points. 4. I’m okay with use of any sort of complex philosophical/political/rhetorical theory, with the caveat that the debater ought to be able to explain the arguments succinctly and coherently independent of the cards themselves. Should a debater misuse evidence / should it be evident that the debater knows little about the complex arguments they are running, this will reflect very unfavorably upon them. 5. Don’t be a jerk in the round or it will hurt you.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask