Cherian,+Asha

ASHA CHERIAN September 2009

I'm the Director of Debate at Fordham University in New York, NY.

Years coaching (college): 4

Rounds on this year's college topic: 0 so far

Rounds on this year's high school topic: 0 so far

I'll preface my judge philosophy by saying I have no qualms with the admission that I'm incapable of stepping outside of my subjectivity to adjudicate within some idealistic objective space. 1) This does NOT mean that I think I assume some sort of role of privilege whenever I'm handed a ballot. 2) It does mean that I believe critics only obfuscate whenever we speak and act as though we exist peripheral to the agency through which we necessarily render decisions. 3) It does NOT mean that I will vote on positions exterior to the 2NR & 2AR decisions. 4) It does mean judges are always "intervening" when making decisions. But I want to do this as little as possible. And you can help me do so by giving me as much direct, context-specific clash as possible and enumerating each position in the debate hierarchically.

Because of my academic and debate backgrounds, I'm K-friendly. But my judging record also indicates that I vote just as often, if not more often, on T/ procedurals, those with clearly defined ground/ education abuse stories (see below for more on this).

KRITIKs: I majored in Philosophy, Political Science and Women's Studies in undergrad (graduated in 2005). Really I was and continue to identify as a student of philosophy/ political theory and fiction. Because of this I might be predisposed toward imagining the fantastical world of the K, but that isn't necessarily a reason I'd vote for it. Good K debates have clearly articulated net benefits to the alt, disads to the perm & analysis on how the K functions (if the K turns case, etc).

TOPICALITY: I like T and think it's an opportunity for a lot of smart argumentation. This doesn't mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means I love listening to 5:30 of line-by-line T in the 2NR (preceded by a :30 overview) or --even better-- just under 15 mins of T between a block speech & the 2NR. Maybe don't go for your T=RVI or T=genocidal args in front of me. Unless you have a counter-interp that CPs/ disads/ Ks are better for debate & an impact for the counter-interp.

NONTRADITIONAL FORMS OF DEBATE: I also really like hearing new, smart forms of alternative debate & aff strats that kritik the res. I like traditional policy bad teams IF they have context specific reasons for why. Any debate strat that questions and attempts to locate problematic bases for debate norms are good. An on face plea to reject a form of debate without clear analysis of *what* is wrong & *how* my ballot begins to change that 'what' is bad. Don't just give me a vague 'reject it b/c it's wrong.' Think about the nuances here when you tell me how my ballot functions.

FRAMEWORK: BUT if you're a team facing one of these policy bad teams and your strat is in line with straight up policy good stuff, this isn't a huge cause for concern. Against non-traditional debaters with me, make the more round specific, clashing, policy good args. Like I said before I love T debate, something that's unique to policy debate. So I'm definitely not biased against debaters who choose to defend the value of policy debate as an activity. You should also feel free to make good policymaker/ roleplaying/ switch side debate good args in front of me. If your strat includes either of these two, maybe give better analysis/ go for args other than the 'wrong forum' & 'fast debate improves memory args', though. Unless better memory power solves for race-based poverty. That would be powerful shit. Powerfully offensive shit. So, yes, remember to impact framework arguments. And engage what the policy bad kids are saying, even if only to prove that their strat is bad.

Framework analysis is often important so, when necessary, I want to hear it as early as possible. I don't care whether it's in the 1AC underview or on a separate framework flow.

Incidentally long overviews on positions are bad. In all likelihood they’re an indicator of poor time management (you’ll repeat yourself on the line by line) or poor organization (you won’t answer the args on the line by line).

DISADS: They’re fine. At some point during this debate you should slow down a bit to talk to me about the story and the scenario that ends up, by the end of the round, being integral to the position (if you go for it).

Impact analysis is, of course, always important, too. This is true with T and theory, as well, in which case give me a net benefit to your interpretation & impact it. It would be rad if you'd name a couple cases that fit your interpretation or give analysis on how the aff writing norms on this topic are bad for some interpretation of ground/ fairness/ education. T offers potentially meaningful in round considerations of what's best for/ how to improve the activity. Not an opportunity for blippy, poorly covered debate. This is the manner in which T should be engaged by both teams.

FLOWING: Unless you specifically request that I do otherwise -- and maybe even in spite of your request that I do otherwise -- I will flow tags, cards, lyrics, episodes of divine intervention, and anything else that may occur during our almost-2 hours in the same room together.

In novice & maybe even JV rounds, I tend to give nonverbal cues -- e.g. nods that indicate i'm jiving with you that the PIC bites the K; faces of confusion that indicate you're not explaining the warrants to your "on fire" piece of evidence you spend 2 minutes explaining in the 2NR without having actually said anything substantive; bewildered faces that indicate my awareness of the 2AR lie that the extra T standard was, in fact, covered by the 1AR. So it's to your advantage to look at me during your 2AC/ block speeches, as doing so may help you formulate/ amend your 2AR/ 2NR strategy decisions.

SPEED: It’s fine. As an aside, if I say clear (I’ll never say it more than a few times per round), get clear.

Despite all of the aforementioned, I think I'll listen to any argument. No I'm not just saying that. Entirely new types of arguments/ ways to approach arguments may arise. And I can't know what I can think of something if that something has yet to be thought, can I? But, to give you an idea of the extent of my flexibility, I'm even comfortable with arguments disguised as non sequiturs (you know, the ones that sound like non sequiturs -- and are assumed to be just stupid -- but are performative and intentional non sequiturs, objects for demonstrating some end -- and therefore strategic). As long as their role as such is clear.

If you're losing the debate on a key issue, by all means feel free to embrace ballsy damage control measures mid-round. Have fun with your concessions and remember that as long as we have time to speak, we have time to explore creative strategic alternatives.

Highest speaks go to those with the most clarity, organization and wit.