Bapodra,+Neil

Interpretation of the Round: My default interpretation of the round is within the lens of a policymaker, evaluating the affirmative plan versus the status quo or a competitive policy option. Obviously if there is an alternative framework, or a clash of two different frameworks I will evaluate the round based upon the winning framework. I believe that the affirmative should defend a stable policy option with a coherent plan text. However, I will not convey any biases within my decision if other types of affirmatives are argued. My default method of risk calculus is based upon an offense-defense paradigm, strictly on the flow and what was argued. Once again, I am not excluding any other method of risk- calculus such as probability-based frameworks; impact calculus should be a focal point of the debate.

Specific Strategies: - Disad/Status-quo/Counterplan/Case Strategies: This is fine. I firmly believe that politics disads are one of the best arguments on this topic (atleast one of the best disad). The more specific impact calculus the better. I expect teams to embed the warrants of the disad impacts and clash these warrants to the affirmative advantages. Specific warranted analysis on the case turn debate is a must. In terms of the Counterplan debate.. don’t bother me with mindless analysis on Counterplan solvency. I will evaluate whichever policy option is comparatively better, evaluating the significance of the net benefit versus the significance of the aff advantages (granted the aff solves better than the Counterplan). I am not biased towards the affirmative, if you tell me that the Counterplan solves the affirmative internal links reasonably and there is a risk of the net benefit, I am inclined to vote negative. I will evaluate the case debate (i.e. case turns/ or defense) within an offense defense paradigm. Also counterplans that fiat uniqueness to disads are effective.

Kritik- I believe that critique ground is a valuable tool for the negative. However, in order to win a large magnitude of the K, the negative has to win some risk of the K turning case and the alternative solving some form of the affirmative. If teams disregard affirmative advantages and simply argue their K, ill evaluate the k as a non-unique disad. If teams don’t have a substantial alternative, them the K is just a linear case turn. That being said, I am completely against generic critiques. The more specific link and impact analysis, tailored to the affirmative, the better.

Performances and general criticisms of debate: I generally find most high school debaters who argue that are flaws to debate very general and warrant less. If you have a problem with the activity of debate, then it is, in my opinion, preferential to find another activity. Debate in my opinion is a very strategic and educational game. You play to be competitive and to win. Arguing that debate is bad, and the rules are bad will not persuade me to vote for your ideology. Ultimately, my job is to remain an objective policymaker… that’s what I will strive to do.

Topicality- I generally believe that competing interpretations is the best framework to evaluate topicality. However, I wont dismiss reasonability if it is coupled with arguments such as an overarching framework based upon evaluating in round abuse. However, it is my opinion that topicality debated should be viewed within an offense defense paradigm, where the end result of the debate establishes affirmative case ground. Limits is the most important standard, which is a gateway to most offense (i.e. fairness, predictability).

Theory: Blippy theory arguments are not convincing, and ill always reject the argument not the team (when argued). I generally believe that negation theory and conditionality can be easily defended. Plan inclusive counterplans are in most part competitive. Most consultation counterplans are plan plus, and artificially competitive (i.e. the net benefit does not de-justify plan action because it is triggered by something external to the affirmative). However, if the country says no, there can be a case made for competitiveness, if the country says no.

Qualifications: I have debated for 4 years for Newburgh Free Academy. I qualified for the TOC my junior and senior years, and reached the semifinals of the CFL national tournament my junior and senior years. I also qualified for the NFL national tournament my junior and senior years and made it to the top 10 in my junior year.