Patel,+Neil

Neil Patel Glenbrook South High School ‘13 Indiana University ’17 Affiliation: Assistant Coach for GBS Updated: November 2015 Surveillance Topic Knowledge: Actively involved in the research and argument production at GBS Although I think debate is a game, competing in policy debate is a tremendous educational opportunity to learn about a multitude of topics while sharpening practical skills applicable to many professional careers. I enjoy judging and coaching because of both the competitive (“the game”) aspect and the educational benefits (including for myself as a judge/coach). There are many effective strategies and styles of debate that can be executed. I encourage you execute what you believe to be the strongest strategy and the one that you are most comfortable with. While there are a serious of predispositions I have about how I would like debates to play out, ultimately, I will evaluate the debate based on what is articulated in the round. Debaters work hard and I intend to work just as hard as a judge. Regardless of the type or nature of a specific position, the following describes how I evaluate or think about debate An arg is a claim+impact+warrant. For example: “fiat solves the link”, “kick the CP for us” are claims until you explain further why your claim is valid Impact Calculus – Essential regardless of the argument you go for. “All styles of debate can be done well or done poorly. Very little offends me. If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause” – Calum Matheson You can win zero risk of disad and advantage. “any risk” is wrong….below a magnitude, change is overwhelmed by noise “try or die” makes sense only if we can predict that the try definitely resolves the die Determining exact percentage of risk is impossible Link controls direction of UQ <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Evidence: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Arg -> evidence to support the argument <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Use evidence sparingly….prefer high-quality to a mountain of terrible cards <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">High-quality (to me that means it has to say what you want it to say)....you can spin the ev. To go a step further if it is logical <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">In my opinion, one of the most important parts of debate, which is why I put a high emphasis on the quality of the evidence <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Logical analytics that are warranted using historical examples, obvious current events, etc. can go a long way. For example, no impact to econ collapse – 09 financial crisis (explain), econ collapse coming now - international markets are down, Greece’s bond yield is increasing, etc. (explain). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Truth versus tech – this is tricky. All else equal, I default to truth over tech, but that does mean you can drop huge chunks of the flow and still be okay. If you drop a blippy arg here or there and come back later with a smart cross-application, that is okay. If teams are fairly equal in terms of coverage on the line-by-line per se….likely default to more “true” or logically sound arguments <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Partners that are able to successfully collaborate toward their common goal (winning) I will be happy. Debate is a game and there is a reason that you have a partner – leverage and utilize their resources and skills. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">“I enjoy debaters doing what they do well. If you’re funny, be funny. If you are smart, be smart. Cordial debates are generally more enjoyable. Context matters. If two aggressive teams have a heated rivalry then it’s going to produce an aggressive debate---I get that. Unnecessary aggression/rudeness/etc will result in lower points.” – Jordan Blumenthal <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Logistics: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Time yourself….otherwise I arbitrarily decide how much prep you have <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Stop timer when ready to email/flash…you have reasonable time to email/flash after <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">This is how I feel about specific positions/arguments: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Affs – <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Should likely read a plan text….most likely be in the direction of the topic <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">T – <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Default to competing interpretations….can be persuaded for reasonability <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Structure is important…debate it like a disad. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Question internal links to impacts….does your interp really solve limits? <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">K – <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">More specific the link, the better….super specific links can make great debates <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Perms should utilize alt text and language of the k and not just say “perm do both” <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">DA – <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Great. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Opp cost v. politics…can be persuaded v. politics disad. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Both a politics DA or a more “specific” DA can be executed equally well <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Love the 2NR that is a DA and unapologetically bashes the quality of the affirmative <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">CP – <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Effective tool – use them. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">CPs should generally be textually and functionally competitive. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Impact Turns: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Love ‘em <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Neg Block/1AR Impact Turns….can be extremely effective when executed at the right time and place. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Framework: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">As mentioned above, I believe affs should generally be in the direction of the topic and most likely have a plan text. Although I, of course, can be persuaded others and I encourage teams to read whatever they are most comfortable with. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">For questions related to anything, email me: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Neilp1215@gmail.com