Midha,+Ayush

Harker '15 Harvard '19 amidha@college.harvard.edu

I am a sophomore debater at Harvard University. I debated 4 years in high school at Harker in San Jose, California.

I make decisions by determining the important questions of the debate, starting with the most broad (does the case outweigh the DA? does the solvency deficit outweigh the net benefit to the CP? does the K outweigh the case?) and paring that down to the specific disagreements (does economic decline cause war? do the consequences of actions matter more than their ethical import?) based on sets of evidence. Given this model of decision-making, it would behoove you to articulate those questions and keep in mind how you would like those questions answered. Reasonably assess what you and your opponent are each winning and present the case for a ballot in your favor. Teams very rarely win all of their arguments, so the team that convincingly and reasonably evaluates the debate is more successful.

I am open to voting for any argument as long as it is persuasively presented. Clash and engagement matters above the content of any particular argument. Given this emphasis on engagement, it is important that the negative disagree with the affirmative.

Regarding the China topic, I know little about the specifics or trends that have developed over the year. Explain nuanced arguments, acronyms, and whatever you may think is obvious.

Regarding theory and topicality, effective comparison of the impacts of standards wins debates. Beginning this process early in the debate increases your chances of winning and makes these debates more interesting. The argument that counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive is easily winnable, especially if the 1AR engages the line-by-line and defines relevant words. I find reasonability on topicality to be persuasive if explained well in the context of important cases the affirmative justifies and argued beyond just "race to the bottom." That means it is important for both sides of a topicality debate to present examples and case lists.

Framework debates often come down to the mechanics of the "topical version of the aff," especially compared to the argument that the topical version is inaccessible or flawed. It is in many cases also critical to establish how the affirmative violates the negative's interpretation, especially if that is not immediately clear. T standards about the value of engagement and clash seem more intuitively persuasive than nebulous "decision-making" impacts, but I am open to hearing both. I have gone for framework a substantial amount as a high school and college debater, and I appreciate a competitively argued framework debate.

I judge most like this guy: http://i.gifntext.com/63534-i-mean-that-s-huge.gif

My debate experience has mostly been in policy debate, and while I am familiar with the differences in LD, mostly everything above applies.
 * Lincoln-Douglas**

"Conditionality bad" is substantially more winnable in LD than in policy, but the mechanics of how I think theory should be debated remain the same. Reasonability is also more winnable in LD given the rise of absurd theory arguments. I would prefer to judge a debate that does not center upon theory.