Nayeri,+Mina

For Harvard 2k14:

My name is Mina Nayeri and I debated for four years at Monte Vista High School in Danville, CA. I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum on both the state and national circuits. I am currently pursuing my Doctor of Pharmacy degree at Northeastern University in Boston. I am mostly a PF judge these days.

PF:


 * Please speak clearly and signpost effectively. Numbering arguments will make me happy if you're making multiple responses to an argument (which I encourage you to do). I am fine with reasonably fast speed as long as you're clear, but spreading in a PF round seems rather foolish. If I can't understand you I'll yell out "clear!" a couple times but if you don't become any easier to understand I'll just drop my pen and stop flowing all together.
 * I don't have any particular preference about what arguments you can and can't run as long as you can make a good case as to why they are topical, and as long as you have compelling evidence backing up your arguments. Arguments with logical warrants behind them are great in rebuttals but it would be best if you make an argument with some evidence behind it in addition to your logical argument. **Blippy arguments are a waste of your time; offensive, well-warranted arguments win you rounds.**
 * I might call for evidence after the round if it becomes a huge controversy, but I would prefer if the two teams could resolve any disputes about evidence during the round (give me warrants as to why I should or shouldn't look to it, etc). **The less intervention I have to make, the better**. However, if it is clear that there is no cite or the evidence is very sketchy, I'll be sure to throw out that piece of evidence from the round. In general, **I'm a firm believer in quality evidence making for quality PF rounds.**
 * Please be courteous, timely, and honest when it comes to exchanging evidence with your opponents. I'll know when you don't end up handing over that evidence that your "...partner will grab in prep time." **Your evidence should be accessible** so if your iPad or tank of a laptop is causing your opponents grief I will get mildly ticked off and might dock speaks if it becomes a problem.
 * ** The way you win my ballot is by weighing and making offensive arguments. If you don't, you force me to intervene, and that's my least favorite thing to do while judging a debate round. **
 * The Summary should set up the arguments to be crystallized in the Final Focus. That being said...**DO NOT MAKE NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE FINAL FOCUS. SLIMING WILL TANK YOUR SPEAKS & I WILL NOT VOTE ON WHATEVER NEW SHADY ARGUMENT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE.**
 * Don't be rude or passive aggressive during round. I will dock your speaks without question. Try not to constantly talk over your opponent during crossfire. Keep it balanced and generally civil, although I know that can be very difficult in PF. Being overly loud, catty, or disrespectful is NOT equivalent to being persuasive!
 * I am all for standards in PF as long as you defend them and actually impact to them during the round. In fact, I would **prefer** you give me a strong, fair framework and standard to work with. I have found that simple standards like cost-benefit analysis are very effective in PF.
 * **Don't waste your time on bad theory in a PF round.** If there's blatant abuse, feel free to call your opponents out on it quickly and then **move on**. I'd like to think that I'm smart enough to catch any serious abuse in round.
 * Time each other. Don't be shady about prep time.
 * This should be a given, but **don't run plans in PF**. It's simply against the rules.
 * Stand for first two crossfires, sit for grand.
 * If you make Arrested Development jokes during your speeches, aren't sleazy, and, most importantly, speak persuasively and passionately, I will gladly give you a 30. (Note: Passion does not translate to screaming, tears, or tugging on my heartstrings.) My average is a 28. **Speaks are a reflection of not only your analysis and persuasion, but also of your attitude and honesty.**
 * For this particular Feb 2014 topic, do not pull out a pocket Constitution and wave it around flamboyantly. Or throw it on the ground. Or rip it in half. I will not be moved.

LD:


 * In all honesty I really don't like a lot of things about the direction in which LD has been going so I'm going to be a pretty traditional LD judge. I'm almost always hired as a PF judge anyway...
 * Theory is fine if there is legitimate abuse. Please don't use theory as a strategy to win if there is no abuse in the round. There needs to be a shell for me to vote on it.
 * I don't like CPs and I think they don't belong in LD. I never ran a CP when I competed in LD so I do not consider myself familiar enough with them to be comfortable judging them.
 * K's are fine and can be very interesting as long as you have a good link to the alternative. However, I would prefer you just stick to standard/case proper debate.
 * Standard debate is very important because weighing is important. Weigh between standards, impact back to your standard, etc. I am cool with meta-ethical standards (Is that even a thing anymore? It was quite the fad my sophomore year of high school). That being said, don't ignore case proper debate. I like hearing debates about the actual topic at hand.
 * Don't be rude! Speak clearly. Spreading is fine to a certain extent but keep in mind that I haven't really flowed an extremely fast round in a while. Taking pauses before signposts and cards would be nice.

I wish you all the best of luck in rounds!