My email (for email chains, or questions): edklin@gmail.com

Background and Experience:

I did policy debate for Leland High School from 1998-2002. I placed at state, went to nationals, earned ToC bids, was in semi-finals of Berkeley, etc. In other words, I competed at a high level in front of both parent judges and circuit judges (slow and fast debate).

For approximately 3+ years after graduating from high school, I came back to Leland to coach policy debate.

However, as you can see, that was MANY years ago. I have been coaching debate at a small private school (The King's Academy) since 2018. I have NOT judged (in practice or in a tournament) any truly circuit/fast debate rounds for over 10 years. [I have judged a few fast rounds at local league tournaments, but these are not the same, of course, as fast rounds on the circuit--I would call this medium speed policy debate].

While I still believe I can handle fast-type arguments (Kritiks, theory, CPs, etc.), two possible problems: 1) I might not be up-to-date on contemporary debate lingo or newer concepts and 2) I might not be able to handle top spreading speeds due to my lack of practice listening to spreading.

Since coming back to debate in 2018, I have judged other debates (LD, PF, etc.), and they generally make sense to me even though I may be less familiar with their cultures. I should be able to handle a medium speed debate in these non-policy debate events.

Profession:

I have been teaching in the sociology department at UC Berkeley since 2014. My subfields are in immigration, globalization, and international development. I also frequently teach classes on sociological research methods (and evaluation of evidence). This is just for your reference so you know what kinds of ideas, concepts, ways of thinking I would most likely be familiar with.

Overall Paradigm:

I do consider myself to be tabula rasa (blank slate). That means that I will try my best to keep my personal opinions out of the evaluation of the debate round and only consider what you say. This means that if you do not say it explicitly (for example, you do not say, the disadvantage outweighs the affirmative case because...) then I cannot evaluate that argument. I will first try to judge the round based strictly on the arguments made in the debate, but if I feel like it is impossible for me to decide who wins based on the arguments in the round, then I will end up intervening and using my own judgment of what arguments were made more persuasively or less persuasively (based at least somewhat on my own personal opinion and feelings about those arguments that are made, or feelings about how good the presented evidence was). I prefer NOT to intervene, but many debates often end up this way because the 2NR/2AR (last two speeches) do not clearly explain how I should vote and/or both teams make the same arguments over and over and neither seem to be winning logically over the other team and so I have to step in and decide what I think is the better argument.

Key Points to Pay Attention To:

- Be clear and explain thoroughly.
- 2NR and 2AR (last two speeches) needs to have clear articulations of how the judge should vote (including impact weighing/comparisons)
- In policy, I am neither "stock issue" or "policy" paradigm, but rather, you explain what you think I should be or do to evaluate the debate round (you tell me what is the best way to evaluate the round and why--convince me to adopt a paradigm if you want me to adopt one, or just convince me why I should vote for you).

debated PF/LD and I've done speech so I will be flowing your rounds

Add me to the email chain always (aanyamittu@gmail.com) I will disclose, just give me a few minutes after the round

Time yourselves, I trust you. If your opponent is going over, just knock on the table or show me your stop watch in the camera (if online)

TECH > TRUTH ALWAYS. just make sure your link is super clear and evident, I don't care if your arg leads to ww3 but you have to explain HOW. if your links aren't clear or you simply don't have one I won't even bother with your impact

EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS AND YOUR WARRANTS!! I don't want to hear about some argument in the first speech and have it never be brought up again until the last one. If you drop something, you drop it. Also, don't just extend cards/key words EXPLAIN THE LINK.

I don't care too much about CX just don't be rude or speak over your opponents. I'll listen but I won't really make note of anything, if it's important bring it up in your speech. And of course, during your speech don't be discriminatory/disrespectful. I understand that you have to make a point, but there's a line. Don't cross it. I'm good with being a little aggressive (esp bc I literally am) but just know your limits.

I'm good with spreading, just share the doc with me. Always have good ethics in this, don't wait until after your speech to send the doc or say a dumb excuse, if you're gonna spread share the doc. If your opponent asks for a card or something, only start prep time once they receive it -- don't waste your prep on waiting for them to send the doc.

Weigh your arguments/impacts and actually EXPLAIN. I don't want to hear "we outweigh on x, y, and z" I want to hear WHY these impacts actually matter.

Speaks should always be 28+ unless you're just horribly offensive or rude. I will deduct speaks to 24-25 if you say anything insanely out of line.

Ways to boost speaks:

• SIGNPOST/ROADMAP PLEASE!!

• if you're funny or I laugh I'll boost your speaks (but don't do too much here pls)
• if you buy me food

Ways to harm your speaks:

• being rude or offensive
• saying your opponent "dropped all your args" when they literally didn't (i'll be flowing, i'll know)
• bad evidence ethics
• ofc, like I've been saying, if you're rude, I'll drop your speaks BIG TIME

PLEASE BE ON TIME OR EARLY TO YOUR ROUNDS. I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO WAIT FOR YOU.