Asokan,+Nishanth

Glenbrook South high school ‘15

Top Level -Clarity is very important both in tags and card text. Slow down. -Clash is the crux of any good debate. -Explanation is key and the team that better explains their arguments earlier in the debate will be more persuasive in front of me. -Tech over truth (usually). - Impact calculus/comparison is truly awful in most debates. I think it should be more sophisticated than just probability/timeframe/magnitude and should include discussions of impact inclusivity, internal link short circuiting, etc. -I have no predispositions that should preclude you from reading anything you would normally read. Tabula rasa is impossible but I’ll try and “you do you”. -Cross-x is as important as your speeches and is binding. -Have fun, don’t cheat.

Specific Arguments
 * Topicality**— T debates are awesome but I am unfamiliar with the topic and as such have no idea what you consider a “core aff” or anything about the community’s consensus. I’m won over by contextualized and limiting interpretations (though I am willing to defer to reasonability if the aff is convincing). Also teams that take the effort to counter define words will make an impression on me.
 * Critiques**— while not versed in every K imaginable I’m probably okay for whatever you want to read. Other than that I think specific links are great, critiques should have external impacts, and the framework debate is extremely important and you should have a clear role of the ballot. I dislike long overviews that are just summarizations and a grab bag of different K tricks. Explanation is once again key and will get you farther with me the earlier it is done.
 * Counterplans**— once again specificity is great but I’m also fine with teams reading consult, PICs, delay etc., even if only for the fact that they will encourage counterplan competition debates which I think are awesome. With that being said I really only think that condo bad is ever really a reason to reject the team and not just the argument.
 * Disadvantages**— not much to say with disads other than that I once again think specificity is great. I also like to see comparative impact calculus.
 * Politics**— I think evidence quality matters a lot in politics debates but only so far as you the debater explains your evidence and compares and contrasts it your opponents’. I want to do as little work post round as possible. Everything above about disads also applies.
 * Impact turns**— Some are good and some are dumb but almost all are hilarious so I really like seeing impact turn debates. They generate easy offense and can thus be very strategic.
 * Non-traditional affrimatives**— Two of my beliefs regarding debate frame how I view non-traditional affs. These are the value of clash and the importance of explanation. I think negative teams often try to circumvent clash by just going for framework or some generic K and I think that affirmative teams slow play their aff with ambiguity or a lack of explanation in earlier speeches. I think both these practices lead to uninteresting debates. I would rather see negative teams try to engage the affs even if they have no evidence and I would rather see the aff being as clear about their aff their proposed role of the ballot as early as possible. All this being said I still do think that framework debates can carry a great deal of clash and explanation but only when done thoughtfully with both sides regarding the other’s arguments.

Closing Thoughts

Debate is an educational game and should be treated as such so please have fun. My personal goal is that at the end of the debate you were able to learn at least something from having me as your judge. Lastly, everything is up for debate and that is the beauty of the activity. Each team has 26 minutes of my undivided attention to explain their arguments and persuade me why they should win; this matters much more than any part of my philosophy. Please feel free contact me with questions or anything at Nishanthasokan97@gmail.com