Tuteja,+Shawn

I graduated from The Altamont School in Birmingham, Alabama, in 2011. This past summer, I taught at UTNIF and IDE, and this upcoming summer (2012), I will teach at VBI and IDE.


 * Speaks**: To start, I’ll average a 29 in terms of speaker points, so that honestly shouldn’t be an issue. If you are debating like you should be in outrounds, you’ll most likely get a 29.5 or higher.


 * Speed**: Feel free to speak as quickly as you want. I won’t penalize you for speaking slowly or at a fast rate. I most likely won’t need to yell clear (I’m not sure if it’s a good thing or not that I’m used to flowing unclear debaters), but I encourage you to yell clear if your opponent is being unclear.


 * Theory**: I think that I have a solid understanding of how theory arguments function within a round. This doesn’t mean that I always want you to run theory, but if you do, I can hopefully make a good decision. I default to theory as an issue of competing interpretations, but I will evaluate the arguments made in round (i.e. if reasonability is won, then I’ll evaluate through reasonability). In terms of RVIs, I evaluate these just like any other arguments. If they are justified and won, I’ll vote for them. I personally think that in order to win an RVI, you must win an offensive counterinterpretation that links better to the voter, and then win the RVI. However, if you make arguments that your RVI is triggered merely because of an “I meet” and win those arguments, then I’d vote on it.


 * Framework**: In full disclosure, I usually went for consequentialist frameworks when I debated (I was heavily influenced by watching Pat Donovan debate). This definitely does not mean that I have a bias towards consequentialism, and if you win another framework, I’ll certainly evaluate the round through it. As a quick side note, I noticed from judging rounds this summer that I require debaters running nuanced frameworks to justify the specific details of them. What this means is that if a debater runs a framework (let’s say contractarianism), and the opponent says that consequentialist arguments link to the framework, the first debater needs to explicitly explain why consequentialist arguments would not link to the standard. Otherwise, I’ll default to thinking that they do.

Additionally, I should say that I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of meta-ethics for a non-philosophy student. If you want to run meta-ethical justifications for your standard, just make sure you explicitly argue why your opponent’s standard doesn’t link to your meta-ethic, if that’s what you’re trying to do.


 * Pre-Standards Arguments**: I think that there needs to be a justification in the constructive speech that says something like “And this argument is evaluated before the standard because…” if you want to run these arguments. A lot of judges say you should spend a lot of time developing these arguments if you choose to go for them. I think that if you’re aff, spending about 30-40 seconds in the 1AR and about the same in the 2AR is sufficient if you’re clearly winning the argument. However, just because I will vote on these arguments does not mean that they’re my favorite arguments to hear, especially when a ton of them are run.


 * Extensions/Weighing**: I probably have a lower threshold for contention-level argument extensions than most judges. I care a lot more about you explaining the implications of the arguments and weighing them than hearing a long-winded warrant again. However, this doesn’t necessarily apply for framework-level arguments. If you’re reading dense meta-ethics, you should definitely be extending the warrants clearly in your rebuttals.

As for weighing, weighing doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If you outweigh on magnitude, time frame, etc, say which of your opponent’s arguments that you are outweighing. Additionally, if you have weighed your offense against theirs, I will look to the weighing even if I don’t personally agree with it. For example, if you win a terminal impact of war, and they win extinction, if you say “war outweighs because it’s cyclical, which is more important than magnitude of the impact…etc”, and your opponent does none of that comparison, I’d look to war first.


 * Policy-Style Arguments**: I feel comfortable evaluating these arguments. I doubt there are many plans being run on the Jan/Feb 2012 topic, but I hear that CP debate is prevalent. I’m also open to hearing CP theory. Just make sure if you’re going to run these arguments, you know how to run them.


 * Activist Positions**: I have gone back and forth during my entire involvement with the activity thinking about whether I agree with these positions or not. What I’ve determined in terms of judging them is that if you win them, I’ll vote on them (and I won’t dock your speaker points or anything). However, if you want to run one of these positions, you should make the role of the ballot clear, and do not make arguments like “Vote for this position if you want to” or anything of that sort that call on me to vote for whoever will not result in a win for you.


 * Calling for Evidence:** If a debater tells me to call for a piece of evidence, I will after the round. Absent of this, I think that I’ll rarely call for evidence. This being said, evidence comparison done in round is really important, since that will weigh heavily in my decision, even if I decide to call evidence after the round.

Lastly, I’m cool with you asking questions after the round if you are unsure about my decision. I understand that debate can get really competitive, and I hope to always do my best to fairly adjudicate the round.

If you have any questions, feel free to find me at the tournament, ask me before round, or email me at sstuteja@hotmail.com