Ramasamy,+Vijay


 * Johns Hopkins University 2019 **
 * Debated 4 years at Blue Valley North High School. **

My debate philosophy tends to be shaped by the people that I have been blessed to be coached by. I found myself thinking W.W.B.B.D. (What Would Brian Box Do) in most if not all of my rounds in high school so if I’m judging you, I would implore you to do the same (Defense wins championships). Learning from Jyleesa Hampton has shown me the power of common sense, strong analytical argumentation, and clever but warranted case and link work. I will vote for the team who convinces me the best that they win the debate round. I never liked when judges did work for teams, so I don’t plan to win the debate for you.

**General**

Spin vs. Evidence: How you explain the evidence and its interaction in the round is the most important thing. With that being said, good evidence and author qualifications are imperative. If a hotdog vendor in Manhattan says that India and Pakistan will go to nuclear war on his weekend blog, I’m not buying it. Spin of your evidence is the way I will evaluate the development of your argument.

Clarity is extremely important to me. Go as fast as you would like, but if I don’t understand you I will give you two warnings. If you are still unclear after two warnings, I will not go out of my way to make sure I have all the arguments you wanted to make.

Speaker points are a combination of quality of arguments made, how you sounded, cross ex, and perceived level of preparation for the debate.

**DA**

If you’re negative, you have to have impact calc AND turns case argumentation beginning in the block and clearly explained in the 2NR. Sans this, it is very hard for me to be compelled that the DA is more important than the advantages of the aff. You should have good case arguments if you want to win the DA without a CP. The negative can successfully mitigate the probability of an advantage at the link/solvency/internal link level. Try or die has never made a lot of sense to me if the aff doesn’t solve.

I will vote on any type of DA as long as there is warranted and strong link analysis. I am happy to grant the Aff zero risk of the link if they win that argumentation and the negative is lacking. The link and internal link evidence a negative reads should be warranted and explained. Showing me how the internal links and impacts of the DA interact with the specific impacts of the aff is the best way to earn speaker points or a win from me.

**CP**

These are good negative strategy. I will listen to any type of counterplan but am willing to vote on theoretical objections if they are warranted out by the Aff. For example, if you read the Delay CP and the aff says nothing about it being abusive, I am 100% ok with voting on it. With that being said, if the Aff does say it’s abusive and the negative beats you on the theory debate, I will err/vote negative. I have no preconceived notions.

**Topicality**

T is great and a wonderful, technical debate. I tend to default competing interpretations but can be swayed based on strong argumentation on what is reasonable and why reasonability is the best framework in terms of your aff. T debates should have a clear violation based on the affirmative and clearly impacted out reasons to vote. Limits are good and over-limiting is bad, topical version of the affirmative and a good case list are always beneficial.

**Theory**

Condo is an interpretations debate. If you don’t have an interp, it makes it very hard for me to vote for you. That being said, I think that two conditional advocacies is OK but I can be swayed based on the debate. I will vote on any theoretical objections that are impacted out and warranted clearly.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">**Case**

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">This is where you will primarily win speaker points from me. I will value smart analytical arguments very highly. Negatives who spend sufficient time attacking the specific links, internals, impacts, and solvency of the aff will get high marks. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Case debate is often about detailed distinctions and it’s important to explain why those distinctions matter.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">**K**

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">This is my least comfortable style of debate but I am happy to listen to it. I am familiar with and debated Cap, Neolib, Heidegger, Foucault, and Security. The only Ks I probably won’t be the best judge for are D&G and Baudrillard. My general consensus is that the aff gets to weigh the impacts of the 1AC and the negative gets the alternative but I can be persuaded otherwise. Tell me the story, prove a clear link(s), prove why it outweighs the aff, show a clear alt (if you’re going for one), and you win.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“Framing is very important. What should I prioritize? Life, ethics, being, something else? The important part is to establish a framing alongside your framework that filters which impacts matter. I am likely to default to killing everyone on the planet is bad, absent work done by the debaters to say otherwise. Be specific about the impact. “Violence” is not an impact. How does it occur? Who is it committed against? What is the scenario? A clear explanation in the context of the aff will go a long way.” - Brian Box

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">You need to establish a clear link in these debates and explain the story of the K in a way that I can tell the other team why they lost. Reading cards without explaining the world of the alt or how the K functions doesn’t go a long way with me. Smart aff arguments against the alt or the K go a long way with me.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I am typically not persuaded by arguments that exclude the aff. If fiat is illusory and the aff can’t be weighed, the debate becomes reductionist.


 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Non-Plan Affs **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I typically think that the aff ought to defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan, but can be persuaded otherwise. Every style of debate is wonderful, but it is your job to convince me on why you win the framework debate.