Gautam,+Sohin

Ohio Valley 2010:

Who I am: My name is Sohin and I am a senior debater at the University of Kentucky High School: Westwood HS (Tx) and McNeil HS (Tx)

How I Judge:

Primer: I don't have a presumption to either the Kritik or Policy sides, I generally do both in College and enjoy watching either type of debate. So even though I spent an entire year not reading a plan or defending anything, I'm not a person who is going to clock in as soon as you say "Next off, the K". I evaluate a round based on the 2AR and 2NR and work my ways backward, using my flow and your evidence to figure out what just happened. I try not to read a ton of evidence, my brightline being a clear warrant extended with the author, and then deciding relevance (e.g. if i decide a CP isn't competitive for x reason then i'll find it unnecessary to read the politics cards). Finally, I can’t imagine a world where I would vote for the negative absent some sort of offensive reason to do so, given that the affirmative does their job in the 1AC.

Specifics:

Theory: I err neg on CP/K theory (condo, dispo, no neg fiat, delay, etc.) and err aff on perm theory. Shockingly, I love acutal, responsive theory debates vs. UMICH theory blocks vs. NW theory blocks (you know, from the summer camps) though come to think of it, it would be fun to decide a debate based on who read blocks better. I bet you'd never do it again. Anyways, I try as hard as I can not to vote on cheap shots (they drop that x is a VI it was subpoint E on the condo debate) especically if they're very shallow through the whole debate, spending 45 seconds on an arg that was 15 seconds in the block (or 1ar) is for the most part pointless in front of me (unless, it's a giant theory debate, then something like that can certainly help one side, though I won't say it will guarantee a W).

Topicality: I'm a good T judge, I enjoy T debates and they can be fun to watch. A well thought-out, evidence heavy T argument will get you a lot further than Should vs. Shall. I have NOT judged a lot on this topic, so I'm not sure what are the informal agreements on T (e.g. "X" aff is not T because of "Y") so if you're running a questionably T aff and the neg is ready to go on this T argument you've been crushing all year, I might be a tad more likely to vote neg based on a compelling 2nr. Having said that, here is how I evaluate T debates: First things first, if you're going for T, go for T I'm not going to vote on 45 seconds of T in the 2NR, spend at least 2 mins on it tying everything together otherwise I'm going to be heavily leaning AFF on T. I err towards competiting interpretations, if the AFF doesnt contest this (or spends like 10 seconds in the 1ar or 25 seconds in the 2ar and those 35 seconds are not superb) I will use competiting interpretations to decide the debate. Limits and Ground are usually all people say--nobody ever talks about precision and grammar and resolutional integrity (let alone ever impacts these things) and the more impact analysis in the 2nr/2ar the better ("their interpretation destroys fairness because x"). Extra T and FX-T (does this still exist?) can be independent voters I guess, but more often than not I'm going to view it as a DA to the AFF interp (though it does really help the neg if they are far ahead on either of these things). I'm generally not a fan of the stupid T arguments, I don't think anybody specs their A anymore so get over it. OSPEC really doesnt make sense (they are spotting you ALL the counterplan ground...how dare they). Also not generally a fan of T Resolved, T Should, T Colon, or running theory for the sake of running theory (a caveat to those T arguments being unless the AFF is not reading a plan)

The Kritik: I'm game. You're not going to perplex me with a storm of Baudrillard and D and G because at some point you have to make an argument and I can evaluate that. It's not a CP with a non-unique net benefit or whatever the policy people disguise it as. it' s a K. I get it. I generally believe the neg will win a risk of a link, It will be incredibly hard to win zero risk of a link in front of me unless its something blatant (like reading the fuck K if nobody as said it, and even then I know the aff is thinking "what the fuck?" as they're hearing it). I like link analysis in the 2nc/1nr if your well developed link analysis is dropped in the 1ar (or portions of it) then in the 2nr i'm fine if you just say ("extend this link analysis, they dropped it, i don't need to do it again"). also, 1ar: answer all the 2nc links, it will be very hard to win this debate if you're dropping a link or four. I'm also interested in the alternative, not necessarily what it does (i really don't care) but how it resolves the link debate, how its going to fix troop/police presence in "x", etc. Vague alts isn't something I usually vote on, if it's dropped (or badly answered in the block) in front of me, use it as a theoretical justification for the permutation (this will go very far with me). K impacts usually fall by the wayside, but it's very helpful to have something external to weigh, so i'm not just voting on a giant case turn, a giant case turn + no value to life is much better for your chances.

Aff Framework: Do it. against a K make them win their impact is bigger than yours, or even that their K should be in the debate at all. If you're going for FW then it needs to be a big part of 1ar/2ar strategy otherwise I'm going to lean negative on it.

the Kritik AFF: this means any aff that doesnt read a plan, reads a plan but "doesn't defend it", any aff that affirms as a mobius strip, any aff that blows off the rez. I don't care if you don't have a plan, I'm not going to sign my ballot and walk out of the room if your 1ac has no plan of action. Do your stuff, i'm fine with it. Be ready to defend framework, a good neg framework strategy (especially execution) will beat your mobius strip in front of me

Neg Framework: Just some thoughts: I'm pretty sure to very sure that nobody is going to leave the activity because the AFF doesn't read a plan...topical version of your aff is very very very big...shively card is dumb there I said it, it just rules are important, like speech and prep no rule says you HAVE to have a plan...be ready to read several cards on this because the AFF will...the colon isnt a terribly persuasive AFF counter-interp with me...generic offense is fine (limits solves totalitarianism) but I'd like to hear public enagement with the political on foreign policy or afghan policy is good...more specific the better

Paperless: too much dead time in transfering speeches...if you give me a CP text i'll love you forever...I've seen problems come up im not sure how to resolve like "uhh...we just lost the whole 1nc" if these come up we'll figure something out but im not going to penalize your speaker points because paperless is dumb. that's unfair.

CPs: For some reason, if you're reading at least 2 CPs it means you're in trouble, im not sure why this happened but it did. I don't care...if you read one CP that solves everything, fantastic, if you read 3 CPs that solve everything and aren't blatantly double turns you're fine. Above I said I err neg on CP theory, this presumption tends to erode as more worlds are introduced in the debate (2 CPs, DA, K, case, T is a little easier to win CP theory in) however my general impact preference (that theory is a reason to reject the CP not the team will stay the same.

other than that, CP's/DAs are fine...do it.

DAs i try as hard as i can not to vote on cheap shots (intrinsics, plan after lame duck) Fiat is immediate is my default unless either side contests it for some reason (though i will err toward fiat being immediate)

Random other thoughts: drop advantages = drop disadvantages 2NC answering dropped 1ac advantages is okay because of a CX...in the 1nr it's not okay add-ons are fantastic things 2NC CPs are justifiable 2NC CP amendments justifiable I'm not sure what the speaker point scale if its .5 to 30 than i average a 27.5 with 28.5-30 being outround quality-->first speaker if it's decimal i'll probably average a 28.0 with 28.7-30 being outround -> first speaker has anybody ever said "be a mega dick to the other team" in this space? be nice, be funny I'm generally not a judge who will be nodding or shaking my head or making faces at you during your speech so don't be discouraged if i look at you like you're making no sense, it's my default im not passing judgement or anything i'll give you a half a point if you can tell me how many times i wrote "i don't care" here ask questions if you have them, i don't care