Kaul,+Raghav


 * Raghav Kaul**

Experience: 4 years policy in high school. I now lounge around the college Parli circuit (lol)

Debaters re-invent the concept of what debate "should be" every round. The most beautiful thing about debate is that all some people do is talk about Robert Kagan. Others have never read a plan in their life. I believe debaters should be introduced to new arguments, but we should never force debate to "be" anything.

Like many judges, I find myself making many judgement calls that are fairly unconscious and opinionated. Not all judges are blank slates or flow-bots, and "neutrality" does you a disservice by making your job easier. Likewise, paradigms don't map brick walls, they illustrate the cartographies and uphill slopes you have to climb. I struggle to think of debates where reading a judge paradigm/forgetting to do so really had a huge influence on the round. Main areas where I'm opinionated:

--CP competition debates revolve around precise definitions of words used in the text of the advocacy. Given that, vague plans are a good hedge against cheating CPs. --I tend to side with the team engaging in the theoretically questionable practice --For 2As who enjoy condo bad: please don't. --Easy trigger pull for the opposite team if team that introduces theory forgets reject the arg or reasonability.
 * Counterplans**

--The neg must prove that the K is a DA to policy implementation, i.e. your impact should make sense. --I'm sympathetic to negative teams attempting to pin down critical affirmatives to something impact turn-able.
 * Non-Policy Debates**

--Be nice --Throw-down - the 1-off CP with 9 internal net benefits or 8 minutes of case turns or case-specific word PIC or 13 minutes of K in the block, all show me that you worked really hard and did a lot of homework about something and that you are committed to engaging the debate. I reward debating that reflects lots of effort put into preparation to be one step ahead of the other team strategically. -- Traditional impact calculus (m x t x p) is cliche. Good impact calculus distinguishes good debaters; it's the ultimate test of persuasive skill. Although most debate impacts are made up, walking the fine line between highlighting this flaw in the opposing impacts without undermining your own is the tricky. Framing is important - structural impacts first, ethics first, existential impacts first, timeframe first, etc. - can be much better than "we outweigh on m, t, and p." --I think debate about politics theory are interesting, often better to listen to than will/won't pass. I like everything from fiat theory, to intrinsicness, to questioning the validity of PC theory to Ks of politics.
 * Speaker Points**

--Before you go for your run-and-gun 9-off strategy or 17-advantage 1AC, imagine if you would want to debate in a community where that practice was the norm. (I would not.) --Frontload tags with arguments. This is the most important skill I learned - it vastly improves flowability and is actually a real-life communication skill. --Terms of art are very important to me. DON'T make up a term of art in your plan text or create attempt to create artificial distinctions that are not backed by coherent scholarship, because you will sound like a fool ("space guard transportation infrastructure," "anti-racist investment in airport infrastructure.," "liquefied natural gas transportation infrastructure," "spaceport transportation infrastructure exclusively supporting aluminum-ice propellant.")
 * General**
 * --**The threshold for an argument is claim-warrant-impact.