Deshpande,+Anusha

Anusha Deshpande The Westminster Schools

I graduated from Westminster in 2005 and debated in college for 2 years. Below are just a few thoughts on how I think debate should work. I will do my best to evaluate all arguments fairly regardless of my own bias, as long as you are clear and that you impact and explain your arguments.

Topicality: This is my first tournament on the topic which means I don’t know what the core of the topic is or what the big affs are. That said, please feel free to run and go for a well-developed violation – just take the extra second to explain it if your argument is highly specific.

CPs: Theory debates aren’t my favorite, but I get it with the craziness that CPs have descended into these days. I agree with David Heidt’s rant on CPs and the suggested guidelines he lays out (see his philosophy for complete details).

Ks: I don’t mind these but I think your explanation needs to go beyond complicated jargon. The more specific your link/impact story can be, the better (pulling links from the 1AC, explaining how the K turns the case rather than just stating it does). Clear DAs to the case are more persuasive than decision rule arguments like “no value to life.” A side note on framework debates: I think lots of teams spend too much time here without really impacting their arguments. Usually the K links need the plan to actually happen anyway. Theory can be OK/necessary against Ks that are all framework themselves but DAs and solvency arguments against the alternative are usually stronger.

Performance/“We don’t care about the Resolution”: Affirmatives must defend a topical plan. Period. If you aren’t sure if you meet this standard, you probably don’t. I am absolutely unwilling to compromise on this, and I make no apologies for it; consider yourself warned if the answer to any of the following questions is yes: Do I think the educational benefits of talking about “x” are more important than the resolution? Do I think the effects of the plan (both good and bad) are totally irrelevant to the debate? Do I need music/alternate forms of evidence to make my argument?

Style: Most of you need to slow down. Either: 1) you are not really gaining time because you are gasping/stumbling/repeating yourself/mumbling/interjecting meaningless phrases like "in a world in which we win" and "we will always win that" in an effort to go fast or 2) you are speaking in a monotone that makes cards sound like a meaningless buzz. I give higher points to debaters who have natural sounding voices and breathing patterns + have speeches that are dense in substance/efficient. Also, if you have a laptop and you’re reading evidence from it, you should be prepared to let the other team use it during prep time, your speech, etc.

Other: Be polite. No rudeness or mocking the other team. Being funny is great- being funny at the expense of your partner or the other team in a mean-spirited way is not.

Last note- clipping is serious cheating and will result in a loss with zero speaker points.