Pandey,+Utkarsh

Woodward Academy '15 University of Alabama at Birmingham '19

Background: I debated at Woodward Academy for 3 years. I was mostly the 2N/1A throughout my career, but I have done some debates as double 2's. I do not regularly research the topics anymore so please try to avoid throwing out random acronyms, I will flow them but I cannot promise that I will understand them.

Miscellaneous Comments: Above anything else, I believe debate is an extremely fun and engaging activity. It really is a special privilege that not everyone has.

What that means in rounds is that I would rather view a debate where everyone introduces arguments they care about rather than only introducing arguments that they think will win the round. I certainly have my predispositions for or against certain arguments but if that is the argument you have prepared and want to read then go for it.

But more importantly what that means for out of round behavior is that I expect you all to be respectful of your opponents, partner, and anyone else who is a part of that round. Be nice and have fun!

I don't like to call for cards. I believe that it is your role as the debater to accurately and effectively represent your evidence. If I call for cards it is because I did not understand a part of your argument, which probably is not a good thing because then I will read the card text with my own interpretation (which might be contrary or different from how you intended it to read).

Clarity over speed. Debate is primarily an oral activity, effective articulation is crucial to success.

I tend to give average speaker points. Here's a general scale of how I view speaker points.

0 - Clipping/cheating in some other form. Don't do it, it is not a pleasant situation for anyone involved (Also please do not accuse someone of clipping unless you are absolutely sure and can prove it, or unless it is blatantly clear that they are clipping).

25.9 and under - You've done/said something offensive or malicious to me, the other team, or your partner. I have a terrible poker face, so you'll know if somethings offended me or not.

26-27.9 - There were major flaws in the strategy, execution, or performance (speaking/clarity).

28-28.5 - It was an average performance. You have solid grasp over the basics but could still approve in more advanced concepts.

28.6-29 - Really solid performance. You should be in contention to break.

29.1-29.9 - Your performance was nearly flawless. The skills demonstrated should lead to a speaker award and late elim performance.

30 - Perfect. Probably won't be giving any of these out.

Specific Arguments:

T - I don't really like topicality as a strategy unless it is really clear that the Affirmative has strayed far from the topic or is bad for debate. In my experience a lot of T debates end up a very shallow (and messy) race across the flow to see how many interpretations and/or violations have been dropped. Very rarely have I seen really good debates on the impacts of T. Why does it matter that the Affirmative is not topical? Why is this instance uniquely bad? And what are the broader implications of reading the not topical Affirmative for debate as an activity or the topic of that year? Those are all questions that you should probably consider before reading T in front of me.

That being said, if you have a clear strategy for topicality and are prepared to debate out the impacts of T then feel free to read it.

T/Framework v. Non Traditional/Performance Affirmatives - It can be a part of your strategy, but it should not be your only strategy. You should make some effort to try and engage with the other side.

CP - I enjoy well thought out counterplans that introduce a novel way to address the harms of the affirmative. I read plenty of counterplans in HS and they were usually always included in the 1NC. What I don't like are cheating CPs and multiple CPs not grounded in literature. Not all of your CPs need to have a card in the 1NC shell but reading 4 CPs with only CP texts in a row won't help you.

Kritiks - I really enjoy kritik debates, even moreso when the K is specific to the plan or the Aff. However, I did not read many abstract or "author" K's in highschool and I am not a philosophy major. That means that if you want to read Baudrillard or something be prepared for a higher threshold of explanations because I am not that familiar with the literature base. I also do not like listening to generic Death or Security Ks.

TL;DR - Have fun, be smart, and do what you're good at.

I am more than happy to clarify anything that is on here and answer questions about things that I might have missed.