Gupta,+Arjun


 * I have 4 years of PF debating experience on the local NJ circuit along with 3 years of college debating, both American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary formats. I have competed at the Worlds Universities Debating Championships last year and am now a PF coach from Millburn High School.

Overall, debaters need to weigh arguments and give me a framework from which to weigh both sides. This should be clear fairly early in the round so that both sides can engage on the weighing mechanism. Show the link between your arguments/evidence and that weighing mechanism. I flow the entire round but I count on teams to show me what to pull through and why it has held up. If a team drops arguments after case construct and tries to use it as the primary basis of the final focus, I tend not weigh it too heavily unless a team can give a reason to do otherwise.

I don't respond well to arguments based on definitions that clearly obstruct certain lines of argumentation that to many, would seem like logically fair ground. There are obvious exceptions if such a position is warranted beyond just "my source is better than yours" and I will gladly accept anything that is well-warranted.

As a general point for rebuttals, I do not like when teams say the other side dropped an argument when they clearly had some response even if it is insufficient. Tell me why that is insufficient or at least acknowledge that something was said. I find teams that just say the other side dropped an argument, in many cases, simply forget to directly engage an argument and weigh the two sides. Something was said on the other side for the last 4 minutes or whatever, tell me why that is wrong, don't just dismiss it on face.

I find crossfire time to be very valuable and debaters that go into crossfires with a plan and can exploit that plan will do very well by me. This definitely is factored into speaker points. However, if something is brought up in crossfire that you clearly win, show me why in a subsequent speech to drive the point home.

Furthermore, my position on evidence is that a team needs to demonstrate clear understanding of their evidence. I expect teams to engage on a level isn't simply countering a number with another number but rather demonstrating that the logical warrant to a particular stat is more compelling than their opponents. I cannot weigh whether the real number is 25% vs. 75% but I can weigh which team proves which number is more likely to be the case.

If your case hinges on an unconventional interpretation, please be clear about the logic that goes behind your interpretation and how specifically I should view your argument. This should be clear from the beginning when making the argument or setting an unconventional framework. I am open to any idea so long as there is some logical warrant. ||