Bapodra,+Anuj

Anuj Bapodra Newburgh Free Academy '10 NYU '14

General note: Neil and I were discussing our paradigms together; he made his a year earlier. I generally agree with him (we’re from the same school of thought, with some minor differences).

Short Version: Do what you want. Evidence is important, and so is the spin you bring in interpreting it. Intelligence is rewarding. Debate is usually a type of information warfare when it comes down to the evidence and warrants. Be yourself, and debate to your best ability.

Interpretation of the Round: My default interpretation of the round is within the lens of a policymaker, evaluating the affirmative plan versus the status quo or a competitive policy option. If there is an alternative framework, or a clash of two different frameworks I will evaluate the round based upon the winning framework. Each team should focus upon the warrants as to why their framework is favorable for the round; otherwise ‘winning the flow’ becomes difficult to assess. I believe that the affirmative should defend a stable policy option with a coherent plan text, however I will adapt to whatever is presented in the round as long as it is defended and explained. My default method of risk calculus is based upon an offense-defense paradigm, strictly on the flow and what was argued. I will not make extrapolations by myself, and will only assess what’s given to me. That being said, judge intervention is inevitable- however I will not allow for biases to intervene in judgement (i.e. personal beliefs, heg is good, saving dugongs is sweet). All in all, there are other frameworks, and it is up to the debaters to determine which they choose.

Impact Calculus: This is an essential tool to win. Hands down. I’m not asking for the Unholy Trinity “Magnitude/Timeframe/Probability” risk assessment, I would like for there to be a step further in which debaters do comparative analysis between their impacts and those of their opponents. The rebuttals should primarily focus on this, because it is the selling point of the debate. As a side note, I personally dislike it when a team claims that they avoid 27 scenarios for extinction while maybe causing 12 scenarios of extinction and that they should win because 27 outweighs 12, but hey it’s just another way of looking at things. Also, for debaters favoring a “probability” style of debate, I believe that probability serves as an internal link to assessing the magnitude of a given impact.

General Strategies: I prefer coherent strategies, but I understand the utilization and benefits for the negative of having multiple worlds. I hate contradicting worlds, but absolutely will NOT let my biases affect my judging.

Specific Strategies for the Negative: - Disad/Status-quo/Case Strategies: My favorite type of debate. Politics Disads are fine, as long as you know what you’re talking about. I have seen politics disads debated very well, and very poorly. It’s my favorite Disad, and when argued well- it shows your intelligence. A good politics debater understands the political spectrum of the status quo. The more specific impact calculus the better. The negative should prove how their impacts intersect or outweigh the impacts of the affirmative in any type of DA. Specific warranted analysis on the case turn debate is a must. Case Defense is also a very important strategy in neutralizing the impacts of the affirmative. If the negative wins good ‘defensive’ arguments against the Affirmative’s advantages, it puts their DA impacts to a higher standard of evaluation in comparison to the Aff’s advantage. The same applies for the affirmative using “defensive” arguments against the DA.

Counterplan: Counterplans should be competitive. They must be a better policy option than the affirmative. I may be a little AFF biased when it comes to evaluating the CP against the AFF. That’s just because I was a 2A and remember strategies where there were Advantage CP’s, multi-actor counterplans, Agent Pics, Discourse Pics, and Functional Pics, all in the same round. Regardless, I think that the Counterplan ultimately has one use: To disprove that the Affirmative plan is necessary to solve for the problems presented in the 1AC. This is where Advantage Counterplans that solve for the internal link to the Aff advantages are highly respectable. The Aff should be ready for this by having specific Add-ons that the Advantage CP can’t capture. Agent Counterplans are a classic, and Functional Pics are awesome. Discourse pics… I’d prefer if they were kept aside as Kritiks rather than Counterplans, however do what’s favorable to you.

Counterplan Theory: Conditionality is probably the best thing for negatives. I’d appreciate it if there was maybe 1 conditional CP, 1 conditional K, and then the status quo. It’s up to the debaters.

Kritik- K’s are cool. In order to win a large magnitude of the K, the negative has to win some risk of the K turning case and the alternative solving some form of the affirmative. If teams disregard affirmative advantages and simply argue their K, ill evaluate the k as a non-unique disad. If teams don’t have a substantial alternative, them the K is simply a linear case turn. The more specific link and impact analysis, tailored to the affirmative, the better.

Performances and general criticisms of debate: Debate in my opinion is a very strategic and educational game. You play to be competitive and to win. Go Big or Go home. My least favorite debates are about how debate is evil and destructive towards education and how role-playing as the USFG is biopolitical. If I am put into a position where I am judging such a round, believe it or not- I will not bring my bias into the round. I will be fair to whatever argumentation there is in round. My job is to determine which team is superior in a given round, debaters are not supposed to impress me (but if they do, they get rather good speaker points).

Topicality- I generally believe that competing interpretations is the best framework to evaluate topicality. However, I wont dismiss reasonability if it is coupled with arguments such as an overarching framework based upon evaluating in round abuse. However, it is my opinion that topicality debated should be viewed within an offense defense paradigm, where the end result of the debate establishes affirmative case ground. Limits is one of the most important standard, which is a gateway to most offense (i.e. fairness, predictability). I really respect arguments that are tailored towards establishing “predictable ground” for both sides of the debate. Education isn’t a voter in and of itself, but is a byproduct of the type of ground established.

Theory: Blippy theory arguments are not convincing, and a team must win that a team should be rejected instead of the argument. I generally believe that negation theory and conditionality can be easily defended. Plan inclusive counterplans are in most part competitive. Most consultation counterplans are plan plus, and artificially competitive (i.e. the net benefit does not de-justify plan action because it is triggered by something external to the affirmative). However, if the country says no, there can be a case made for competitiveness… if the country says no.

Qualifications: I have debated for 5 years for Newburgh Free Academy. I qualified for the TOC twice my junior year, and reached the semifinals of the CFL national tournament my junior, and quarterfinals my senior year.