Sankar,+Ravi


 * Ravi Sankar**
 * Affiliation: None**

__The high level__ I've been out of the event since about 2009. I debated for Trinity Prep from 2004-2008, went to TOC twice, taught at VBI in 2008, and coached at Presentation High School until 2009, so I was once reasonably competent, but I'm definitely rusty these days. In particular, I expect that my flowing skill and my ability to understand speed have decayed over time. So I think if you treat me as a parent judge in terms of speed but a circuit judge in terms of arguments, we'll probably be good.

__More details__ This is mostly my paradigm from 2009, with the parts that might be misleading now edited out.

I will generally try not to impose my biases onto the round, and you can theoretically win a round in front of me doing whatever you want. If you want to maximize your chances of winning though, here's what you should know:

CROSS-APPLICATIONS/ARGUMENT COMPARISONS: This appears to be a place where I am atypical, so I am putting it first. Basically, I view almost all arguments as interacting with each other. I would always prefer that you explicitly label your cross-applications because a) then your opponent and I both know what's going on and b) then you can flesh out the cross-application in more detail. However, I will feel free to compare arguments even if there isn't an explicit cross-examination when there are competing extensions. E.g., the negative extends some major defense X from the top of the AC and the affirmative extends a dropped argument Y from the bottom of the AC. If X seems to me to be the stronger argument (i.e., the truth of X disproves Y and X is better justified), I will discard Y even if there was no explicit cross-application. I will, however, apply a (by definition subjective - see my notes on "TAB-NESS") "reasonability" standard so that the 3rd of 5 defensive responses to the second card in the contention doesn't wind up being a secret auto-loss/case-takeout. In short, I think it is reasonable that you are responsible for thinking about how every argument on the flow operates holistically / interacts with every other argument.

SPEED: Like I said above, I doubt I can flow as well as I used to be able to, and I never loved speed ( obviously "fast"/"slow" are contextualized by the LD community: I don't expect anyone to slow to conversational speed). So it's probably good to err on the slower side if you're debating in front of me. It's also super helpful if you explicitly mark organizational structures (slowing down for card names, adding in explicit enumeration and transition words and slowing down for these, etc.). I won't refuse to listen to a faster round, but you're just increasing the chances that I fail to understand key arguments well enough to effectively evaluate them.

EVALUATIVE PARADIGM: I generally prefer a prescriptive interpretation of the resolution (aka, offense/defense or worldview comparison model) to a descriptive (or truth-testing) interpretation. I was initially reluctant to come to this conclusion, but I think the arguments for why such an interpretation provides a better division of ground and easier-to-resolve round are very good. This does not mean that you cannot choose to operate under a truth-testing paradigm if you think you have a really sweet argument under it; it just means that you should be ready to win that debate knowing that I am probably partial to your opponent's arguments. However, it does mean that my default assumption (prior to your winning otherwise) is that the negative's job is to do more than "prove that the resolution is //not// true"--it is to prove that a world where we adopt the negative's (policy, ideology, position) is somehow better than one where we adopt the affirmative's. I do not think this prescriptive paradigm excludes any kind of argument except terrible skeptical arguments (objective truth does not exist, we cannot guarantee that language conveys meaning, etc.) If you run a position like this, even if you win truth-testing, you will get terrible speaks. I don't think debaters should get rewarded for pointing out facts-about-the-world that we have to bracket to operate (you mean that nothing is //truly// flat?!) On the other hand, I think critiques (or kritiks, whatever) can very easily fit into this paradigm. [Note: I have no idea if this is even a relevant comment anymore. It was still an issue around 2008, but maybe it's just been settled by now, just as most people in my era finally agreed RVIs were usually kind of dumb.]

POSITION STYLE: I like positional debate a lot. If you want to run 5 unrelated arguments with a ridiculously broad criterion, that's your call, but I think that it's more interesting when your case is a focused, coherent whole.

I used to have a strong taste for critical arguments, //when run well//, but I'm more neutral on them today. The single most important thing that determines whether critical arguments are run well is whether you have read the literature. If you don't have that level of competency with your authors / source texts, it's pretty obvious and makes for terrible rounds. A smart non-critical position is better than a critical position you don't understand. But if you can run a critical position well and demonstrate that you know what you're talking about, that can be fun. I'm stealing this from ghosts of LD past whose names are now meaningless, but if I could pull all the literature in your case from a single "virtual shelf" (i.e., all your authors "jive" on some level), then the round is that much more awesome.

THEORY: I am fine with theory, but I don't //enjoy// it. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't run theory if it's a legitimately effective strategy though. Basically, if you're going for theory because you're stumped and can't actually think of responses or because you're just trying to throw your opponent off or just because you can (e.g., parameter-spec), then I'm not going to happy and your speaks will suffer. If you're going to run theory, please run it in a formal shell and do it because you have sound justifications for why your interpretation is preferable to your opponent's.

MISC "STRATEGY" NOTES: Spikes are supposed to be //arguments//, which means they have warrants. If you just extend some lame sentence pulled out from a two paragraph string of one-sentence claims, I'll probably just ignore it. With that said, a developed pre-empt that is designed to trip up your opponent is totally cool. A prioris need to have explicit (and good) justification for their unique status. Multiple a prioris are highly suspect. So are multiple, sufficient standards.

TAB-NESS: In practice, I will try not to make random decisions based on my beliefs. However, I think the idea of pretending to be a truly "blank slate" is slightly ridiculous. I have tried to outline my relevant beliefs here so that you can adapt to me. Just know, however, that if you run an argument that I deem particularly unjustified, the amount of work your opponent has to do to get rid of it is really low. If you extend a claim lacking a warrant (and by this I don't just mean that you don't reiterate the warrant clearly, although you should definitely be doing that, but an argument where there is no justification that I can even see/understand)), then I will ignore it. If a response seems totally and obviously non-responsive, although it's still better to tell me that that is the case, I will also consider ignoring it even if it is dropped. If someone just extended the word "monkey" from their case / said "monkey" in response to some argument, it wouldn't mean anything; I consider the status of the previous two extensions equivalent. Also, see the note on cross-applications.

Basically, be smart, run interesting positions, have fun, and the round will be a good one.