Gupta,+Anuj

Roslyn High School '17, Columbia University '21

Conflicts: Roslyn High School, Scarsdale AW, Syosset JA, Lovejoy CM

Hi Guys! I debated for Roslyn High School (NY) from 2013 – 2017 on both the National Circuit and more traditional/local circuits.


 * If you're starting an email chain, add me - gupta.anuj@columbia.edu**


 * UPDATE FOR BRONX'17: This will be my first time back on the circuit in a long time so 1) (ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT) Read my stuff on speed - if I can't understand it I won't flow it (Idc how fast you spread evidence, but please go slower on claims, authors, and the like), 2) If you're flashing/emailing, I want a copy of whatever is being sent.**

Theory/T – 1 Performance - 2-3 K – 2-4 (depending on the type of K – Cap is probably a 2, DnG is a 4) LARP – 3-4 Micropol/Non-topical Stuff – 4-S
 * __Prefs__**


 * __Short Version__**
 * I will evaluate any argument made, so long as the argument itself is not racist/homophobic/sexist/etc. or an ad hominem against your opponent, but my threshold for responses will vary (see “My thoughts on Intervention”).**

When debating, I used theory and T all the time (yes, even the frivolous variety), so run pretty much whatever interps you want. Ks are cool, but if you’re reading some hyper-dense lit that took you a few weeks to understand, it’ll probably take me the same, so be clear about what you’re saying (drop the unnecessary jargon). Performance is fine, just articulate a reason why I should vote you up. **No matter what your strat is, PLEASE give me a clear picture at the end of the 2NR/2AR. I'd rather have you tell me why you win than do that work myself.**


 * __My thoughts on Intervention - a way to make debate more accessible__**
 * BEFORE YOU READ HERE'S A DISCLAIMER - this is just for specific cases in which a really polarized "clash of civilizations" debate takes place (i.e. lay vs. K) or I judge a round where the RFD is really noneducational. You can relax - I'm not going to just disregard the flow and intervene if I don't like you.**

As a debater I always found my rounds swaying between “that judge did so much work for that debater – completely unfair” and “that arg was nonsense – the judge should’ve done something.” I think that this highlights one of the core dilemmas of debate, namely, the issue of when it is appropriate to intervene.

I think that as a judge, my role is to determine who has more offense back to an advocacy given a particular role of the ballot or framework with which to evaluate said advocacy. Now while what I will refer to as negative intervention (intervention in the form of a judge’s disregard of particular arguments or reduction of credence of those arguments based upon a particular prejudice) is commonly accepted as a bad norm for debate, I think that often times debaters and judges forget the value and importance of positive intervention when evaluating the validity of arguments on the flow. Positive intervention is the exact opposite – it is intervention on behalf of a debater that actively grants credence to particular arguments in the context of certain inequalities present within the debate space (think of it as affirmative action but with arguments instead of people).

What exactly constitutes positive intervention? For example, if a relatively traditional/younger debater is up against a Wilderson K but doesn’t understand the concept of blackness as ontological, I won’t penalize them for extending the case in the 1AR and leveraging a stock util framework against the K instead of first taking out the role of the ballot. I would expect the K debater to clearly articulate (in a way everyone can understand) why evaluating the K is a prior question, and why the aff shouldn’t get to leverage AC offense against the criticism (something like “the K criticizes the assumptions your authors make about the world, and because anti-blackness is so poisonous, the judge has an obligation as an educator to reject the aff”), but I'm not going to do that work for you. **This is different from embedded clash - if you read technical criticisms or theoretical arguments, I expect you to be technical in their execution.** It is my belief that **if you truly are the better debater, you should be able to explain your positions (even critical) in a such a way as to convince the average high school/college student of your argument.** I think that too many debaters have gotten caught up in the technicalities of debate and forgotten that the goal of a discussion is to promote inclusivity and tolerance within the real world – people in the real world aren’t experts on high theory (sorry to disappoint). To clarify, I’m not going to get up and say “Agamben was too complex for lay, you lose,” but rather, **if you read dense stuff** (this also pertains to your 500 spikes in the Underview), **I will expect you to be able to explain your arguments in such a way that you can have a productive conversation with your opponent.**

Another instance where I will default to a paradigm of positive intervention is in the case of positions that I feel are detrimental to the activity as a whole. Now I understand - the round is yours, but there are certain positions that are potentially damaging to the activity. For example, if a debater reads a theory shell saying that they should have the ability to sign the ballot if their opponent does not do 2000 jumping jacks in the 1AR, and the opponent refuses (good for them), what am I to do as a judge? In these instances, granting extreme leeway for opponent responses not only seems justified, but almost obligatory. Now the follow up question then becomes, why not just gut check on theory? In my own view, even frivolous theory has its limits. For the most part, frivolous theory deals with issues of debate practices within the round (i.e. CX checks, AFC, ought = probability, etc.) and is therefore not damaging to the process of a tournament (no matter how stupid the argument itself is). However, once the argument itself encroaches on my ability to adjudicate the round or the ability of a debater to feel included (i.e. triggers), the decision I make will not result in the selection of the better debater and I must intervene. So just to be clear, **you can read crazy interps and really advanced Ks, but if you're gonna take that privilege and use it to completely wash out all of your opponent's ground and strategy with something stupid, I will positively intervene and grant them more credence in their responses.**

__**TLDR:**__ if you’re hitting a novice and you go for the strat of a TOC finalist, I’ll probably give the novice a little more leeway on explanations and responses. If you read a K and the link is the word "the," you're probably not going to win in front of me.

I’m fine with speed but probably not your fastest. **Please go slow on ALL author names, plan/CP texts, theory interps, and K alts.** Tip - idc how fast you go when reading your cards, but say "and" before your next tag - it helps with flowing. I’ll yell clear, slow, and loud. Note that if I yell one of these things during your speech, I probably missed what you just said, so it’d be in your best interest to repeat it. **I'm also very expressive when I flow - if I look confused/repulsed by what you just said, I probably have no idea what you're talking about (you should take that and explain your arguments more).**
 * __Speed__**


 * Extensions - please extend the claim, warrant, and give me some sort of explanation for why I care about what you're extending. If you read 20 blippy extensions of random args, odds are that I won't get what you're saying.**

These are just how I view certain issues from a personal standpoint. Feel free to make args – I’ll evaluate whatever is said in the round. - T > Theory > K - Drop the debater on Theory/T - Fairness and Education are voters - Jurisdiction is probably an independent voter, everything else is just education in hiding - Fairness > Education - Theory and T are RVIs - Meta-theory > Theory/T - Competing Interps - Presume aff (doing something is usually better than the status quo!)
 * __Defaults__**

Great – run whatever you want. These are my guidelines: - All shells should have a clear interp, violation, standards, a voter (fairness/education/jurisdiction/etc.), drop the debater/argument, and a mechanism for evaluation (competing interps/reasonability). Don’t be lazy – if you’re reading theory then do it properly - Spikes are cool, but extend them and flesh out as complete shells plz - Weird voters (stuff other than fairness, education, and jurisdiction) are probably not independent of those 3 (jurisdiction is probably fairness, but I’ll buy it) - Specific interps that are extemped get you higher speaks - Not a fan of disclosure theory - Strategic theory is fine - Not a fan of gut check (few exceptions - see "My thoughts on intervention") - Vague reasonability brightlines make no sense - if there's a major dispute over whether a debater meets a brightline, I'd rather just have competing interps. - Not really sure why there's a trend now where 1AR theory access needs to be preempted in the 1AC. - Try to keep it to 1-2 shells max in the NC – once you have more than that it gets pretty boring and crazy to evaluate - I will not vote on a shell or grant an RVI to a counter interp read in the 2AR
 * __Theory/T__**

I did a lot of K debating my senior year, and think that Ks are a great way to really bring forward structural issues that our society faces today. **I’m not that well read when it comes to critical lit, so please explain yourself well.** To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, I'm somewhat familiar with CLS, Cap, Wilderson, and Intersectionality, but as a debater I found Ks like DnG to be a little tough to follow. Please make links explicit, and alts should be something other than just “reject the aff mindset”. Floating PIKs are cool - just explain how the alt works.
 * __Kritiks__**


 * //If your strat involves reading a K or arguments pertaining to your opponent using the wrong gender pronoun when referring to you, please tell everyone in the room which gender pronoun we should use to identify you BEFORE the round begins.//** As we begin to adopt a broader spectrum of gender within our society, I think it is reasonable to expect that some people will make genuine mistakes with this sort of thing. I don't think dropping a debater (unless it is deliberate and done in a taunting manner) is the appropriate recourse for this behavior.

Awesome. My senior year I read a model minority performance aff and discussed issues surrounding conscientization. I need a clear ROB to evaluate the narrative, and you need to explain what sorts of offense link.
 * __Performance__**

The more creative the plan texts, the better! I'd prefer if you didn't read an extinction impact to every argument (that is to say, I like DAs that have impacts that are directly relevant under the AC framework). **I don’t assume util – read a framework.**
 * __Policy Args__**

Fun to judge. I know most basic and conventional phil positions and what the authors are, but that doesn’t mean you can blaze through Rawls or Kant at 500 wpm and expect me to understand everything you’re saying. You should explicitly explain what offense links to your standard.
 * __Framework (non-K)__**


 * Other than that, try to have fun. Debate only lasts for 4 years so enjoy it while you can. Feel free to ask me before the round if you have more questions.**

- Being really creative and knowing your stuff (if you do all the stuff I mentioned in the "my thoughts on intervention" section, I'll probably give you a 30) - Being funny/witty in CX - Bringing me chocolate/food - Great one-liners to open overviews ("My opponent has run out of tokens in the arcade and it's GAME OVER for them" - classic, but be creative) - Memes - Jokes about lay debate (this doesn’t apply if your opponent is lay)
 * __Stuff that will get you high speaks (probably)__**