Rajagopal,+Jayasai

Jayasai Rajagopal Jackson ‘12 University of Chicago ‘16

I know most of you are going to be reading this a few minutes before the round or as part of a bunch of other paradigms so here is a summary of the rest of this document: Decisions – I will vote on the flow in the easiest manner possible. Clear warrants and crystallization are your friends Speed- I have yet to meet a high schooler I couldn’t flow. Clarity is extremely helpful Plans/policy things – I tend to default to a policy maker paradigm with these. Framework- avoid being generic. Probably my favorite part of debate rounds. Ks- a well written K is interesting. I am not the best read on K lit Skep- you can run it, just be specific when comparing it to other frameworks in the round CX- is binding A prioris/NIBS – go for it, make the implications clear early Theory – give me a clear violation/interpretation. Avoid being generic Extensions – extend CWI. CI is sufficient if you are in the 1AR, are extending a card, and it is dropped Speaks – be funny and have good global strats. Humor is your best friend I would also recommend skimming the “Things I don’t like” section
 * TL;DR**

I debated LD for four years at Jackson High School in Massillon, Ohio. I traveled on the circuit sparsely for my sophomore and junior years and frequently my senior year. If you haven’t heard of me, then you have probably had better things to do with your time than study the schematics for every single tournament. Here is a small list of my achievements: - Beat someone with a bid December ‘08 - Was among the top 50 speakers Harvard (JV) ‘09 - Won 3rd round at Yale ‘10 - Won 3-2/2-3 round at Glenbrooks ‘10 - Met Richard Shmikler July ‘11 - Lost 6th round to eventual champion at Beltway ‘11 - Lost 1st round to eventual champion at Blake ‘11 - Lost to 2 debaters with bids Emory ‘12 - Got one of those bid things as a senior
 * About Me**

I cannot claim that I am not without biases when it comes to judging rounds. I tend to prefer arguments that are similar to what I ran in high school, but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote on other arguments. I view the debate round as a story. It is your job as a debater to fill in the details and tell me what happens. I will reward a sound awareness of global strategy. I am also very lazy which means that I want to do the least work possible when making a decision. The easiest route for me to vote on the flow is the one that I will always take. In terms of traditional “paradigms,” I think that they are all just different variations of the same idea, which is to prove who argues their points best. If you want, you can justify a specific way how I should determine that point, but otherwise I will default to the assumed paradigm that both debaters seem to default to.
 * Decision making process**

I have no preference in regard to speed. I am not the best flower in the world and it is possible that I miss writing down an argument. It would be to your benefit to slow down when you are covering something important such as tags, critical analytics, and authors. I can usually get the content of your card if you blister through it, but there is a chance that I will miss specific nuances. Please be clear. Clarity makes flowing speed much, much easier. I will yell at you if I need you to be clearer/louder etc.
 * Speed/Flowing**

I view policy rounds in a slightly different manner than I would a regular round. In this situation, I need to think like a true policymaker and act on the option that would be the policy in a real world scenario. Make sure you provide some kind of ethical framework with your plan AC, even if it is a short util justification. It doesn’t make sense to me to just look at the merits of a plan when we examining the ethical considerations of that plan. I do believe in the existence of terminal defense in this kind of debate, so I probably won’t buy that there is an extremely small chance that your extinction scenario will be triggered if the other debater decisively proves that the risk is miniscule. Even though we might be invaded by evil aquatic hamsters from Jupiter at any time, no reasonable entity would reroute all of their resources to prevent this hypothetical invasion despite the risk.
 * Plans and “policy” style arguments**

When I debated I ran ACs with multiple layers of framework that took up most of the 1AC. Whether you choose to do that or spend your time on substance doesn’t matter to me. As a neg, do what you feel most comfortable doing with framework, concede it or answer it. If you choose to answer the framework, I would like to see specific comparison between frameworks. Avoid generic dumps. Those get really boring and your speaks will probably suffer if you throw out the same Korsgaard, Parfit, and Hare cards that everyone else is using. Interesting frameworks will all but guarantee you good speaks.
 * Framework-y things (I realize this was a terrible pun, I apologize)**

I never ran them and I absolutely hated hitting them. Please make sure you know what you are talking about and not just spewing rhetoric. If you can run it and run it well, then you will be graciously rewarded with speaker points. I am not as well read as I would like to be on most kritikal philosophy, so surrounding cards with simpler translations is helpful. Ks do not always need an alt especially when they function as a rejection of framework or as a “kritikal disadvantage.” In the meantime, I will hit the massive pile of Foucault and Nietzsche in my bookshelf.
 * Kritiks**

Skepticism is interesting in a philosophical sense. In terms of a debate round, I don’t think that skep really has a place. By all means utilize the strategy, but make sure you explain why skep means presumption/permissibility is triggered and why it is triggered. Also specifically explain where your skep interacts with the other framework(s) in the round and why your theory manages to avoid the issue of skep.
 * Skep**

I don’t flow it but I will be paying attention (probably). I tend to believe CX is binding and I wouldn’t recommend trying to argue otherwise. I don’t care if you sit, stand, or lie on the floor.
 * CX**

I will not categorically reject the usage of either strategy. I will treat them as I would treat any other argument. In general such arguments are terribly warranted and two sentences of the AC that become a 3 minute voter in the 2AR. If you do that, you will lose. A clear, nuanced a priori/NIB can be a helpful strategic tool and one that leads to all kinds of interesting argument interaction.
 * A prioris/NIBS**

I really love theories like util and deon…just kidding. To me, theory needs to answer three questions: 1. Why is this interpretation good for debate? 2. How is my opponent violating this interpretation? 3. Is their act of violation sufficient to trigger punishment? If you want me to vote on theory, you need to be able to definitively answer those three questions. I will warn you that I am not the biggest fan of theory being used for strictly strategic purposes as I think it contradicts the purpose of such argumentation, but I will still vote on theory if it is dropped. I will evaluate the line-by-line and will evaluate theory as simply another layer of debate. I tend to default to reasonability although justifying competing interps is not very difficult. If you do decide to run theory, keep things fresh. Read a nuanced interp and try to stray away from the clichéd arguments that seem to crop up in 90% of theory debates.
 * Theory**

In general, arguments should be wholly extended as claim-warrant-impact. Don’t just extend the Smith card, you should give me a small summary of what Smith says to make sure that I know exactly what argument is being extended. I know that the 1AR is extremely time crunched, so my threshold for sufficient explanation is less than if you were in any other speech. If a card is cold dropped and you opt to extend it, it’s sufficient to just go with claim-impact in the 1AR.
 * Extensions**

I will start with a 28 and you work your way up and down from there based on your global strategy and argumentative awareness. Humor will be richly rewarded. I greatly appreciate obscure pop culture references when making comparisons. I will give out more 30s than most people since a 30 means an excellently debated round. For a guaranteed 1 point boost in speaker points, both debaters can agree to declare the round a Xiaolin Showdown (no Shen Gong Wu need be wagered). All you have to do after that is yell “Gong Yi Tanpai” before you start timing your first speech. I will also increase your speaks if you make references to either Pokémon or basketball.
 * Speaks**

Parts of this were shamelessly ripped off from Matt Zavislan’s paradigm (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Zavislan%2C+Matt)
 * Things I don’t like**
 * 1) **Out-of-round theory**: I don’t want to punish someone for doing something outside of the 45ish minute window in which I judge your fate. Don’t force me to make that decision. The one exception to this is if a tournament requires disclosure and you can definitively prove that your opponent failed to do so.
 * 2) **Generic deon/util dumps**: they are generic. I have heard them already and they are boring. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote on your Korsgaard card that everyone else has run, but your speaks won’t look that great.
 * 3) **VC/standard of the Categorical Imperative**: the imperative is not a computer into which you stuff maxims and figure out if they are universalizable or not. It is not an evaluative mechanism. Don’t make it one.
 * 4) **Being** **dodgy in CX**: Don’t do it. there is literally no educational benefit to avoiding the question when in CX. This is the only time a judge gets to see debaters go head-to-head so don’t come off as perceptually weak
 * 5) **Warrants, the lack of them**: Warrants are awesome. They make debate rounds make sense. When you read a short 2-3 sentence argument without them, I get annoyed and will probably drop your speaks. I hate blips so don’t make them. A single well-warranted argument is a million times stronger than 15 unwarranted ones.
 * 6) **Skep before theory**: this makes no sense. To quote Matt, “ if skep means that I don't care about the rules of debate then it's totally okay if I vote for your opponent because it's not like you can object”
 * 7) ** Narratives ** : the story could be interesting, but I find it really hard to make a categorical decision based on one instance as the justification
 * 8) ** Endorse the movement ** : I have never been persuaded by these positions and I feel that I have no obligation to join the revolution and vote you up for advocating such a position. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote on micropol, I just have never met such a position that I found truly convincing.
 * 9) ** Value/criterion as a voter ** : This just tells me how I look at the round, not why I vote for you. Don’t do it.
 * 10) ** Overtly offensive arguments ** : If you are being blatantly racist, sexist, etc. I will drop you and give you a 0 (or the lowest the tourn lets me). There is no reason to be offensive to people.
 * 11) **Misrepresenting evidence**: While this is difficult to prove, and you will get the benefit of the doubt on miscut/misrepresented evidence, I will drop anyone that falsifies evidence and give you a 0 (or the lowest the tourn lets me).
 * 12) **Being a jerk**: If you are facing a novice or someone who doesn’t have much experience on the circuit, don’t debate like you are in finals of TOC. If you don’t take the most strategic route when facing someone worse than you (not running theory against someone who has never heard of it), then I will reward you with speaks. Keep the round fun for everyone, including your opponent.

If you have any questions, ask before the round. I will disclose who I voted for and I will disclose speaks if you ask. Have fun and good luck!