Mandhania,+Ankur


 * Update as of Fall 2012:** I am no longer coaching debate and probably won't judge beyond the odd tournament or two. However, I spend a decent amount of time around debaters (I'm in law school, so...) and promise not to show up at a tournament without having done some basic work to get the rust off. As such, I am not suddenly transformed into a lay judge, BUT:

(a) Don't assume I know anything about the topic. I don't care if there's literally one aff out there and everyone has the cards memorized and knows exactly how the stock arguments go - expect that I have no clue about any of that. This can lead to a bunch of consequences, but tends to be the biggest issue in late-in-topic debates where arguments have evolved in a fashion reflective of trends on the topic. Read your evolved arguments, but expect that on acronym or jargon heavy topics, for instance, you will have a bit of 'splainin to do. This also means that I have even more of a tendency to retreat into functional understandings of arguments rather than an evaluation of their accuracy - I'm probably not qualified to evaluate whether or not a given statement on the rez is true, so will defer to what is said in round. Academic honesty good, though, so don't abuse this unless you like handing your opponents easy Ws. (b) Don't assume I know anything about the contemporary view of debate. I will not have much familiarity with whatever the sexiest new argument on the block is, and you should not rely on my having experienced/thought about the new innovation that's sweeping the land. For example - I saw the metaethics thing coming and had a decent clue what the heck was going on because I was pretty involved in debate in 2009-11. If I had then the level of involvement I have now, though, that would not be the case. If there's been some kind of radical innovation in how debate strategy is contemplated or whatever, therefore, I will give it a fair hearing but have little ability to do what 'everyone knows' you should do when faced with such a thing. (c) Speed - my best guess is that this will not be an issue, especially if I do my job right regarding shaking off the rust before I show up (certainly wasn't an issue at tournaments in 2011-12, when I wasn't judging as much as before). However, my old standard was "can flow anything up to and including elite policy speed" - this probably isn't the case anymore. If you are as fast as the average kid in elims at the LD TOC, we probably won't have a problem but you should be on your guard in case I have wildly overestimated myself. If you're substantially faster than that, though, be wary.

Also, you should feel free to email me at. @gmail.com if you have further questions, or FB me. ___ The short paradigm is: (1) Debate is fun for me - please let yourself enjoy it, too! (2) I like people who seem to be really thoughtful and self-reflective. (3) I really hate injecting my own knowledge into debates (perhaps cause I don't have nearly as much of it as I should), whether about debate or about the world. (4) I have a very axiomatized approach to debate, whereby I assume a very minimal number of things to be true and sort of just figure things out from there. Thus, I don't really discriminate against arguments based on their content. That said, I reserve the right to tease you about the dumb argument that you lost to in front of me. =)

If it's 15 seconds before the round and you don't have time to read the rest of this, don't worry - most of it is detailing consequences of the four statements above, apart from a few debate practices that I really care about. If you have time, though...

I debated for four years at Leland High School in San Jose, CA, competing at the 2006 TOC. I then competed for 4 years in NPDA college parliamentary debate for Cal, clearing at the 2009 and 2010 NPTEs. I am now a law student at NYU. I'm also not the Ankur who posts on cross-x.com. Don't adapt to Ankur Sarodia when debating in front of Ankur Mandhania.

East coast debaters accustomed to APDA parli judges - NPDA and APDA are meaningfully different in ways that will impact how I see debates, so "oh he's a parli judge" is a spectacularly bad assumption for you to make.


 * Empirics:** I vote negative about 60% of the time in either event. My average speaks over the last 2.5 years has been around a 27.6.

What follows is my LD paradigm, since I don't think I'll be judging parli again anytime soon. =( They were mostly the same anyhow...

A request in terms of my flowing - if you're reading a large set of arguments against a position before answering that position on the line-by-line, please tell me beforehand so I can flow your "dump" of arguments on a separate sheet of paper. I reward people who do this with slightly (.5) higher speaks.

Specifics:
 * 1) I try to judge every round the same, unless given a reason not to. That is, "don't vote on cheap shots in the bubble round at the TOC" won't go very far with me - "vote for my movement because this round has a lot of observers and will get attention" will do a bit better.
 * 2) Intelligibility: the standard for me in figuring out whether an argument makes sense is "can I explain it in my RFD, and answer some basic questions about what's going on?" I ignore anything that fails to meet this standard. I try pretty hard to make sense of what you're saying in round - I have only had to use this to exclude an argument in a debate twice in the 6 years I've been judging - but please don't be the third!
 * 3) Stylistically, I have two preferences. First, have some fun in the round! It's really fun to watch someone who has command of the room in a debate - the only thing better is when you see TWO such people. Feel free to laugh at yourself and act like you know what's up (try not to get arrogant, but you get the picture). Second, take a ridiculous position and defend it as if it were reasonable. Debaters have an unfortunate tendency to run towards the reasonable/commonplace, and it's a lot more interesting when you decide to get a little crazy. Say something that makes me sit up in my chair!
 * 4) I tend to reward debaters who make obvious answers to arguments rather than trying to read inapplicable blocks. It makes me really sad when people ignore the obvious reply, especially when those answers are contained within the case/cards they've already read.
 * 5) I'm flowing as much of your exact rhetoric as I can get. I pay particularly close attention to nuance in your statements - I'm voting based on the argument you made, not the argument that's almost the same that you DIDN'T make. This really instantiates itself when it comes to a lot of the jargon we throw about in rounds - I want to know what YOU think dispo/condo/competing interps/reasonability/net-benefits etc etc mean, so that I can judge the debate that YOU are having. An interp of any such terms, therefore, would probably do you good.
 * 6) Example: when we read a dispositional CP, I answered status questions with things like "if you read only defense, we can kick it." That meets my standard for clarity; "it's dispo" doesn't. If you're unclear, I will defer to the first team who provides an interp in order to evaluate the round. If no one provides an interp, I'll try and fill in the blanks as best I can, I guess...
 * 7) I'm probably pickier than most judges in terms of having clear and explicit links and "argument functions." I'd like to know, for instance, what it means in the context of this particular round to "give you leeway" on the T debate. I also want to know precisely why realism being inevitable (or heg being good) implicates the K. If you're answering an opponent who makes this error, point that out as terminal defense against their arguments - evaluating debates where everyone acts as though inapplicable arguments actually have a link will typically confuse the heck out of me, and only increases your opponent's hopes of winning despite their idiocy. I will tend to view new articulation of link arguments after the speech in which the position was originally read as highly suspect (and, 99% of the time, as new).
 * 8) Extensions - I would like you to reference the argument extended and the impact. The level of warrant extension needed is dependent on the level of answer - if the NC drops case, I'm fine with "extend framework, it's conceded, so all I have to do to win is X. Extend Card Y which said . It does X because ." If there are actual responses, I need you to explain the warrants of your arguments in a fashion that answers those responses, meaning you'll probably extend more of the warrant than that.
 * 9) New Cross-Applications: I'm fine with the 2AR saying "this is the exact same argument as what I answered in the 1AR, let me cross apply my answers." I will evaluate whether to allow these cross-applications on a) whether your characterization of the argument as identical is accurate and b) if the NR could've predicted that these responses were applicable. I'm not quite as draconian on (a) as I used to be, but (b) is pretty much a d-rule to me. That said, intelligent 1AR grouping can make this irrelevant - you say "group all the times she says X" in the 1AR and you'll probably be okay on this question.
 * 10) **Prep/CX/Flex**: You MUST engage in 3 minutes of cross-examination that does NOT involve prepping argument - this is non-negotiable, and disregard will result in poor speaks (max 26.5, in other words). You MAY ask questions to your opponent while you are prepping. My default setting on this latter bit is that the questions can be of any kind - clarification or not. If you want to alter this default setting, you and your opponent MUST agree to whatever alteration you want prior to the round, and inform me of it before the 1AC begins. As I hope is clear, I will accept any alteration of my default settings that doesn't alter the 3 minutes of CX I'm requiring.
 * 11) It depresses me to have to say this, but - if you cheat in a significant fashion (making up cards, giving a 5 minute 1AR, using wifi during the round to receive coaching - really big obvious stuff) and get caught, you will lose and get the minimum speaks tab allows. I've given a L5 before - don't test me on this one.
 * 12) I like it when debaters make debate accessible to everyone. I have a lot of sympathy for the outsider/underdog/novice, so be nice to them. If you're not, don't be shocked when your speaks suck. If you are, you will probably get the highest speaks I give all tournament, and make me say nice things about you to everyone I see for the rest of the weekend. Don't necessarily "go easy" on novices, cause I'll vote for them if they beat you, but do try to make the experience of debating a big shot like you less terrifying for them.
 * 13) Chances are that I've run something dumber/sillier than the weird stuff you want to throw at me, and tried to win it. Assuming it is comprehensible and well explained the first time around, therefore, I will have no compunction voting for anything you win. My basic philosophy is “even dumb arguments need an answer,” and I often find that a part of me hates the decision I'm making. This probably sums up my basic paradigm.
 * 14) I will refuse to evaluate arguments that attempt to tell me how to assign speakerpoints. I decide whether you get a 30, sorry...
 * 15) I will yell clear. However, I suggest reading my non-verbals - I tend to express my confusion there well before I decide to interrupt your speech.
 * 16) College parli on the west coast (NPDA) is basically HS policy without the cards, so 99% of the rounds I've been involved in have involved a plan from the aff, with theory/CP/DA/K arguments comprising the neg strategy. I feel pretty good about my understanding of these arguments. I also competed in LD when everyone's case had a value and criterion or some type of burdens standard, so feel like I understand that debate pretty well, too. If you do something outside of these parameters, make sure that it is very clear from the get-go what you have to do in order to win the debate.
 * 17) **Default settings on theory**: presumption doesn't exist, fairness and education are voters, fairness outweighs education, reject the team not the argument, theory is a matter of competing interpretations, fairness is binary (meaning that both sides being unfair "washes" the theory debate). **Any of these can be changed by your arguments in round**, of course, so warranting them in round is probably intelligent.
 * 18) My default understanding of competing interpretations is such that issues of abuse are irrelevant within that paradigm - it's about norm-creation, etc etc. I am fairly certain that this is just a logical consequence of CI - as such, I will apply it unless you present a vision of CI that explains to me how not to apply it. This also means that I care a lot about the text of your interpretation, since that text, much like a CP text, generates the uniqueness for your standards arguments. Feel free to make "interp flaw" arguments that impact to some kind of voter, as those would be sufficient for me to ignore your opponent's interp!
 * 19) Read a we-meet to your counterinterp, especially in debates where the fact that you meet isn't obvious. "They don't meet their own counterinterp" is game set match on theory in 99% of debates. This is not a form > function thing, though - if the interp is "conditionality bad" and your interp is "conditional CPs are good," I will assume that your we-meet is the violation in the original shell.
 * 20) Relatedly, theory debates which are focused on whether or not a given practice is good for debate (condo good/bad, multi-actor fiat good/bad, whole rez good/bad) probably don't need a counterinterpretation, but I will rectify that by assuming that you are engaging in a full throated defense of the practice in question. In other words - if they say "conditional counterplans are bad for debate" and you don't read a counterinterp, I assume your theoretical advocacy is "all conditional counterplans are good for debate." The idea here is to give you an incentive to craft a smart CI, but not make this technical error a game-over issue.
 * 21) Please don't take my willingness to vote on theory to mean that you have to invest a lot of time in answering it. Sometimes, the we-meet is enough to make the page go away, and I'll be pretty impressed if you take that gamble and it pays off. This doesn't mean that you should ONLY make a we-meet, obviously...it means that you should decide how many answers to make and how much time to invest based on how good the argument actually is, not based on anything in my paradigm.
 * 22) I find myself wishing aloud that people would engage in a rigorous defense of reasonability as a way to make theory arguments go away. If you have a smart interpretation of reasonability and good reasons why that's better than competing interpretations, I'm totally down to listen.
 * 23) I have and will vote for many "anti-theory" strategies, including RVIs, Ks of T, etc. While I find that many such arguments are shoddily developed and don't make a ton of sense, I don't feel like I should insert my own beliefs regarding such arguments into my decision calculus, and will evaluate them based on the way the round breaks down. If you have a particularly innovative way to answer theory (and can make it make sense), I'm a particularly good judge for that.
 * 24) Intervention: I tend to think most rounds require some level of intervention, and vote for the side that requires less intervention. This makes me like nearly every other judge you've had at a circuit tournament, I know...I reserve the right to intervene in situations where something truly horrific or offensive occurs, but it's pretty hard to horrify or offend me unless you try.
 * 25) I understand that some arguments are quite literally calls to intervention, and I don't want to prevent you from making those. If you want to read such an argument (usually comes in criticisms of debate, but it can happen in other places), please tell me what I should do if I'm not doing my usual line-by-line thing. I'll admit that these arguments trouble me because I'm not totally sure I can reason through them in non-contradictory fashion, so spending some time to ensure I know what to do will help you quite a bit.
 * 26) It's a lot harder for me to put my gut-check away when you're making erroneous claims of fact, especially if they're about the law. I am not an expert on much of anything, but this is something I struggle with. Be warned.
 * 27) I tend to value “spin” over “substance” when it comes to argument quality. That is, I will prioritize different metrics of assertion strength (evidence vs analytic, qualification level, recency, depth of warrant, specificity of warrant, etc) in the order that you tell me to. I might call for the card to check up on your assertions of recency or something, but will overall defer to you – if your opponent concedes that your dumb, poorly-warranted card is the best piece of evidence on the issue at hand, I'm not sure why I should disagree with them. I'm really impressed, relatedly, by people who can weigh competing assertions intelligently; this is a good way to get extremely high speaks from me.
 * 28) I hate judges who are unpredictable and unable to articulate decisions. Assuming you do this in a civil fashion, feel free to ask questions to better understand what my thinking was. I think you have the right to ask me questions about my decision until your doing so means the tournament runs late, and will do what I can to honor this. Similarly, telling me “it's in your paradigm, so you should vote this way” is a good strategy in front of me.
 * 29) Be nice to each other, expect an oral critique and disclosure if the tournament permits, and good luck!