Bilgi,+Amit


 * __Background: __**

I did LD for a small school in SC and policy at Vanderbilt. I had some reasonable success my senior year through clearing at various tournaments and winding up at the NDT. I was a 2A for the vast majority of my rounds.


 * __LD: __**

I have not judged LD on the national circuit since Wake 2011, so I am not aware of any new trends or norms in the activity. I am fairly involved in the policy community, however, so if anything has "trickled down", I'll probably understand it.

This functionally means that you can say or do really anything as long as you justify it and can explain it to me. I think this is especially true in the context of theory, since I hear theory arguments have exploded in circuit LD. Don’t presume I understand default reasons why certain things go certain ways. It’s not “obvious” to me that Affs do or don’t get RVIs. I can also be persuaded that neg doesn’t need to explicitly answer aff spikes until the aff actually contextualizes what they are for. Shotgunning 20 ten-word args at the bottom of the AC is probably not a great idea. I studied philosophy in college and really missed debating ethics in LD, so don’t be worried that I’m all about plan vs. CPs now.


 * __Policy: __**

__Short Version/Big Picture Things __

I debated exclusively policy arguments on the aff, but was relatively flexible on the neg. This means you can read whatever you want, but I probably have a slight preference toward “traditional” arguments. My goal is to be as un-interventionist as possible, which means that I won’t a priori reject any argument (yes, this includes //those// stupid arguments, but the threshold for answering those is obviously lower). As long as you can justify what you say/do, by all means go for it. I say this seriously in that __I will theoretically vote on any argument, even ones that I strongly disagree with. Therefore, go for whatever you’re comfortable with and just explain the argument to me.__ Debate is a game and the goal is to win. I don’t care how you decide to win, as long as you try to do it.

__T __

“We’ve been reading this aff since GSU/Wake” is not a reason you’re topical. I default competing interps and think in-round abuse >>>>>> potential abuse. Ground is a more persuasive standard than limits. I think even winning reasonability means you need a reasonable interp.

__Evidence __

I am probably far more concerned about evidence quality than average judges, I’d imagine. I took debate really seriously and value hard work over anything else. If you can demonstrate a good comprehension of your (or your opponents’) evidence and just all-around topic knowledge, it could really help your speaks. I won’t read every card after the round, but there’s definitely a threshold for how much spin you can get away with that isn’t grounded in what your cards actually say. Powertagging cards is way too common and is a pretty bad practice.

Also, please for the love of God stop reading terrible impact cards. You know the ones (Khalilzad 95, Diamond 95, Strait Times 2K, etc…). All of these are highly outdated and lacking in warrants. Especially in the era of free camp files and open-source, there really isn’t much of an excuse anymore. If you are still struggling for a good impact card that isn’t older than you are, please let me know and I’ll gladly give it to you.

__Counterplans __

Advantage CPs are severely underutilized. 99% of aff advantages are not intrinsic to the plan, so doing it through a non-topical way is a pretty easy way to go. Teams should also bring back uniqueness CPs and 2NC CPs.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">Conditionality- I don’t understand why 2 conditional advocacies is the magic number to equalize the playing field. I think if you win condo good, then you probably get as many as you want. However, if they contradict, then I think they are probably bad. Reading a neolib K and privatization CP simultaneously is so much worse than 6 conditional advantage CPs. Showing how making an argument on one flow can be conceded to gain offense on another is a pretty easy way to show me that the neg is cheating.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">Other CP Theory- I err neg on almost everything else, but barely. I think I might be a little different than some judges in that I won’t tank your speaks for reading delay, consult, etc. Debate’s a game, do what you want if you can defend it. Similarly, I think 2ARs need to be more willing to just go for theory as a reason to reject the CP. Both in the cases of the aforementioned CPs, but even with agent or process CPs as well. Even though I think those are probably good, 2Ns are oftentimes pretty terrible at the debating them, so take advantage of the almost inevitable under-coverage in the 2NR. I also have a soft spot for really old-school theory args like no neg fiat and topical CPs bad. I thought those were fairly fun to debate.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">Judge-kicking for the most part seems far too interventionist for me. If 2AR goes for CP links to the DA or some external offense, then the neg is stuck with the CP.

__<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">Disads __

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">Zero-risk is real. There’s a 1% risk of almost anything happening, so I can be persuaded the risk of the DA is so low I should just round down. The same goes for aff advantages

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">I did a lot of politics work and we went for it a lot, so I’m very familiar with the DA, but I think teams over-rely on it. I can probably be convinced that it’s non-intrinsic (or at least I’m not as dogmatic about it).

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">I also don’t think anyone has a right to the politics DA. Answering “fiat solves the link” with “but we lose the politics DA! What else are we going to say?!” isn’t terribly persuasive. I’m all for increasing neg ground and it could be a decent argument in certain T debates, but not here.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">If you win a time-frame distinction, then I am extremely persuaded by DA turns case.

__<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">Kritiks __

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">If you like “old-school” Ks like Nietzsche, security, biopower, etc. I’m probably great for you. These were pretty much the only types of Ks I went for when I debated. Although the link to the aff isn’t great, I understand them and think the aff definitely needs to defend everything they say, even on such an epistemological level.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">If your first thought when your opponent breaks a new CTBT aff is “gee-whiz, we can finally read these nuclear policy links to our Bataille K!”, I am probably not a great judge for you. The fact that I’m not even sure what the nuclear policy link to Bataille actually is probably indicates my lack of knowledge/interest on the subject.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">If you go for a K, pull out all the tricks out-tech the other team. If that means going for framework so I don’t weigh the aff, so be it.

__<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">Non-Traditional Debate __

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">If your definition of a “critical aff” is one that defends a topical plan text with structural violence or other non-standard policy advantages, I’m a great judge for you. I really like these debates.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">Other than that, I think the aff should be topical and should probably have a plan. My bare minimum for aff abuse is if you no-link out of the Topic DA or the negation of whatever action they talk about in the 1AC. What this means is that the aff might not have to have a “plan” per se and they might not have to actually defend a US policy, but if they discuss the topic area of prostitution, for example, the negative should get to read a DA about why prostitution increases trafficking and a CP arguing that non-legalization options are better. If you meet this burden, then I might not be a terrible judge for you.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">If you want to win with a non-topical aff in front of me, it will 100% be because you out-debated the other team and are just better on the technical aspects of the flow. I am not persuaded by any pathos-based claims about your qualms with the debate community or your personal experiences. If your default 2AR includes a prewritten two-minute overview, I’m probably not the best judge for you. I am also thoroughly unpersuaded by claims that minorities can’t participate in traditional policy debate or that minorities can’t defend the state. If you do not understand why this argument in front of a brown judge who debated many rounds with a black partner is offensive, you probably shouldn’t pref me.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">My only real gripe is here is with neg fairness. In my experience, rounds I’ve watched where the aff was non-topical and neg went for something other than framework have been extremely interesting.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">I also think affs have a high burden to prove that they actually do something. I understand that the 1AC speech act might be a good thing, but why does that need to be tied to a ballot? Voting neg doesn’t mean that the 1AC disappears from everyone’s memory. I am more than willing to vote neg on presumption here if the aff doesn’t do an adequate job of proving that winning is key. If your answer to this is that “we need to win so our argument gets more exposure”, I would unquestionably reconsider doing so.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">I'm also not a framework hack by any means. We went for it all of once my senior year.

__<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">Misc. Things __

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">Clipping is cheating. If you clip and if there’s video proof. You will lose.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">Be nice—I understand debate can get heated and being aggressive in CX can be useful versus an uncooperative opponent, but there’s zero reason to scream, insult your opponent, or be rude in general. I’m a pretty laid back guy, but this type of behavior really gets on my nerves. This is without a doubt the easiest way to drop speaker points fast.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">Please stop using vacuous debate phrases like “cold-conceded” or “Pepsi challenge”. To paraphrase Nick Ryan, I might drop your speaks by a full point for the phrase “cold-conceded”, but I’ll add it back if you can explain the difference between cold, hot, and regular conceded.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">I love humor. Debate tournaments are long and exhausting. Throwing some jokes in the mix (even if they’re terrible puns) and just all-around friendliness is an easy way to get me to like you.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">I studied economics in college and worked in finance, so I think I have a decent understanding of how the economy works. I would kill for a good, technical econ impact debate.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">My favorite argument of all time is “courts shield the link”.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">My favorite judge was Hays Watson.

<span style="font-family: Cambria,serif;">email me with questions: arbilgi@gmail.com