Pramanik+Abhik

Debater at UC Berkeley 2011-2013

__**Note**__: Most of these things below are not ground breaking…I could summarize some of my thoughts with saying I probably consider myself a slightly right “policy” judge, I don’t like cheating CP’s, I’m not the best judge for the K and I’m a 2A so I’m more sympathetic to the aff abusing the neg then the neg abusing the aff.

__**Introduction**__ – I’m a big fan of debates that favor lots of clash i.e. huge case debates and focused debates (this means 4-5 off in the 1NC rather than 8). I also like good impact comparison. My favorite debates are Advantage CP and DA debates. I generally value debaters that focus on the “truth” of their arguments rather than merely focusing on tech. This does not mean I will disregard dropped arguments; rather some arguments are just much more true than others. I also place a heavy emphasis on quality of evidence, if you hand me five terrible cards after the round and the other team gives me one great one you’re going to be in a bad place.

__**Topicality**__ – I think that I probably have an aff bias towards topicality if the aff does everything right in the debate. However, I can easily be convinced that competing interpretations is a better standard for debate. I think that evidence proving your interpretation is good but I’m honestly more persuaded by arguments that we should have interpretations based on what would be best for the debate community as a whole rather then what the academic community thinks about a certain definition.

__**Theory**__ – I generally think that conditionality is acceptable unless people start reading 3 conditional advocacies. I think that Consult, Condition and other Process CP’s are generally illegitimate though good debating can persuade me otherwise. International fiat is acceptable but I find myself easily persuaded aff or neg on this debate. Well-researched PIC’s are awesome and to be encouraged. I think that Word PIK’s are generally illegitimate and bad for debate. I also enjoy theory debates and thinking about ways we can make the activity of debate better.

__**Counterplans**__ – I think that counterplans must be based in the literature and I dislike contrived process counterplans. Most of my thoughts on CP are in theory above.

__**Kritiks**__ – For being affirmative against the K, 2AR’s should focus on defending their methodology, attacking alternative solvency and extending the case, though these are all pretty obvious I don’t think people do it enough. I’m ok with K’s on the neg but I generally prefer more “policy” debates. I am obviously open to all arguments but this just means I probably have a higher threshold for most K “cheating” arguments (like floating PIK's....)

__**Systemic Impact Framing**__ – I think that general root cause claims are insufficient to entirely take out the other teams impacts. For example, if one team says that X makes war between the US and Russia inevitable, I will not just take it at face value. A more nuanced explanation of how X (Say capitalism) implicates Russia-China war is necessary for me to vote on these arguments.

__**Framework**__ – Opening note: I do not think that framework is a procedural question, I think the framework for debate should be whoever creates the best model of debate based on the reasons put forward in the round. For the affirmative I am not “against” performance affs and I’m willing to listen but I tend to lean negative on most framework questions. On the negative I think that defending a plan or an advocacy statement is good primarily for questions of decision-making. Debate is a crucial avenue for learning how to make private decisions by learning about how to make harder public decisions. Decision-making is good because its one of the most transferable things from debate we can take into our own lives and being better decision-makers effects the world around us and our ability to be more persuasive. Also, I don’t think reading framework against teams that claim they can access their advantages “discursively” is all that strategic.

__**Disadvantages**__ – I think impact calculus is extremely important but it has to be good. This means not simply saying X outweighs the case because it happens faster, its more probable and it causes extinction. I prefer more intricate arguments and reasons your impacts implicate the aff’s impacts. Other very important components on the impact debate are inevitability/uniqueness claims, controlling the level of escalation and turning the case.

__**Arguments I Think Are Dumb**__ – ASPEC, Plan Flaw (in most instances), C/I – Only our aff is topical, Reverse voting issues, DA’s not instrinsic to the plan (politics is up for debate), Time Cube, DA T/Case – We can’t do the plan if we’re all dead.