Choudhary,+Karan

I debated LD for University School (FL) for 4 years, graduating in 2016 and qualifying to the TOC my senior year. Some (a lot) of this is stolen from Jacob Ronkin’s paradigm.


 * __ I will vote off of most arguments as long as I understand them. The following are mostly defaults, but I will easily ignore them if any arguments that say otherwise are made. However, I will not vote for any arguments that are offensive. If you have a doubt about whether an argument is offensive, it probably is. __**


 * REQUIRED- READ THIS ** : (Copied from Jacob Ronkin’s paradigm who copied it from Michael Corder’s paradigm) Give trigger warnings for any argument you find might be potentially harmful to another debater (i.e. arguments about suicide, sexual assault, intimate partner violence). If you are unsure about whether or not your argument is triggering ask anyway, it is better to be safe than sorry. And should you not give a trigger warning for arguments that pass the reasonable bright line for requiring a trigger warning, you will at best get a 26. And, should you not give one and your opponent is triggered you will lose the round with a 26.


 * General: ** I am fine with most speeds. Start at like 70% so I have the opportunity to get what you are saying. I will yell slow or clear as many times as necessary, but if it’s clear you aren’t changing then your speaks will start to suffer. Have fun, and don’t be mean. No one likes a hostile debate round. If you and your opponent like to take little jabs at each other during your speeches, I welcome that as long as it isn’t blatantly offensive. Be funny if you are funny, and one-liners never hurt.


 * Strat: ** Do whatever you do best. I default to theory and the ROB coming first, but I welcome arguments that sort of blend the different layers of debate. I think arguments that say why substance comes prior to theory or why the standard means the ROB falls under it are very strategic. Be creative. I will reward good and interesting strategic decisions with high speaks.


 * Role of the Ballot(s) ** : I default to a truth testing paradigm, but with that said, I will evaluate using whichever ROB is won. I default to ROB arguments coming prior to substance, but I welcome creative arguments that suggest otherwise. **IMPORTANT: Winning the role of the ballot is not enough to win the round – I require at least some offense linking back to it.**


 * Theory ** : I read a decent amount of theory. I will vote on theory if it is won, regardless if the shell is frivolous or not. With that said, make sure the theory debate is clear. If you want me to vote on theory, then you must provide the necessary parts of a shell and voter otherwise I don’t believe I have the jurisdiction to vote on it. I default to competing interps and drop the debater, but I would appreciate it if you specify.


 * Theory vs ROB: ** I default to theory about the ROB to come prior to it, but other than that I don’t specify. With that said, you can easily win arguments that say the ROB should come first.


 * Framework ** : I am fine with any type of framing (value and criterion/role of the ballot/burden structure/etc), but FRAMING IS NECESSARY. I am pretty well versed in most phil, especially analytic phil, but will obviously evaluate other types of arguments just like I would for the arguments I read.


 * Tricks ** : I love tricks. Tricks are great. Tricks make rounds fun. However, be open about your tricks. There is a difference between being tricky and being shady. If you decide to be tricky, make sure you are clear about how the trick functions. If you do not do this, I will be very unhappy. A well-executed trick will get high speaks. Being sketchy about your tricks and making the round extremely messy will get you low speaks.


 * K’s ** : I will gladly vote on a K if won, but I’m not the most well versed in K lit. I did read K’s occasionally throughout my senior year, so understand some K lit (mostly identity politics). One preference is that K’s have some framing or framework (it can be a role of the ballot, normative framework, or even the aff framing), just be clear of what the framing is.


 * LARPs ** : I very rarely read util, so I am not that well-versed with it. I’ll do my best based on the arguments presented, so if you make your arguments and explain how they function, you will be fine. Similarly, in these debates specifically, please avoid jargon as much as possible. I know some words but definitely don’t know everything you might go for.


 * Traditional ** **Debate**: It can be very fun. If this is your preferred style of debate go for it. I think traditional debate has very unique educational benefits that often times are ignored in tech debates.


 * Extensions ** : I don’t have the highest threshold for extensions, but I’m not the best flower, so if you explain the warrant quickly, I should be fine. More important than extensions, though, is explaining arguments implications in round. If you explain X card’s implication on the framework debate, I will not disregard it if you


 * Speaks ** : Basically, I will reward those who make good strategic decisions with high speaks and give lower speaks to those who don’t make the best strategic decisions. However, all of the following contribute to good/bad speaks as well.

High Speaks for:

1- Clarity

2- Good Strategy

3- Good debates on specific issues- even if it is an issue I’m not as well versed in (like LARP debates) I will reward good engagement with high speaks for both debaters.

4- Efficiency/Weighing

5- Being nice- please do this, especially against novices. I will be harsh with speaks if you are mean to novices in debates or in rounds you will clearly win.

6- Being straightforward- no matter how tricky your arguments are, please tell your opponents what your arguments are. You can read anything from a prioris to unturnable standards and everything in between, but being sketchy and hiding it will just harm your speaks.

Taken from Diganta Rashed’s paradigm: If you crack jokes about the following people without being blatantly offensive you will get higher speaks: 1) Neal Kapoor

2) Michael Corder

3) Jacob Ronkin

4) Diganta Rashed

5) Brandon Kramer

6) David Wang

7) Wesley Hu