Arid,+Nadia

I debated for four years at Presentation High School on both the local and national circuit. I now attend Stanford University and currently coach at Palo Alto High School.
 * Nadia Arid**

In general, I am comfortable voting on any type of argument as long as there is a clear warrant and as long as the debater tells me what do with that argument. It is the debater’s job to set up the hierarchy of arguments for me. But, if that decision calculus is not present in the last few speeches, I will have to look at all the arguments and come to a decision based on how I think the round played out. However, I’d much rather leave that type of weighing in the debaters’ control. You’ve all heard it before: sign the ballot for the judge.

Truth-testing v. Comparative Worldviews: Although I don’t align myself too heavily with either, I would say that I enjoy debates more when there is a weighing of offense/impact analysis and a net benefit to voting for a certain side (so I will default to a comparative worldview paradigm unless I am told not to), but I acknowledge that there can be very compelling arguments that function on the truth-testing level. I just need you to provide those in round for me to give them full weight.

Speed: I can generally handle speed as long as you’re still coherent (and if a debater at any point goes faster than I can flow, I will give some type of verbal indication). However, I put a caveat to that: if you are planning on running a position that is critical or philosophically dense, I would prefer that you did not read it at your top speed. I did not generally run critical arguments when I debated so I won’t be able to give you the benefit of the doubt if you are not articulating your position clearly. If you run a critical position well, my prior knowledge of it should be irrelevant anyway. [Note: I've recently been drawing a distinction between too fast or too unclear after having judged kids that were 100% clear but extremely fast and kids that were slow but jumbled. If you are a particularly fast speaker, please let me know before the round so I can let you know how I will communicate to you if you go too fast for me.]

Theory: I don’t mind if you run it. I am pretty familiar with theory, and I do think that it can function as an important check on in-round abuse. At the same time, I do not enjoy disingenuous attempts to confuse or spread out an opponent through the use of pre-written theory. Always include warrants and specific links, and try to adhere to the structure as much as possible (just for clarity and to make later extensions easier). If you are going to go for theory, tell me how I am supposed to evaluate it and make the voter 100% clear.

Spikes/ aprioris: These are also arguments. They also need warrants and substantive extensions.

Speaks: I will reward creative choice of arguments, efficiency in rebuttals, substantively engaging your opponent, and impressive strategic decisions. I will decrease your speaks if you are offensive or extremely rude.

If there’s anything else you have questions about, feel free to ask before the round.