Khatri,+Parth

= = toc =Parth Khatri= Constraints: New Trier

I've debated at New Trier for four years (2008-2012). I was a 2N for all four years in high school. I was a student at Washington University in St. Louis and I did not debate there. I'm currently in Madison, WI and may be judging midwest tournaments more frequently than I did when I was in college. The last tournament I judged was a St Louis UDL tournament in February 2015 on the oceans topic. Since then, I have not done anything debate wise, so my familiarity with topic specific acronyms may be a bit lacking.

=The Short Version:=
 * An argument consists of a claim, warrant and impact. If you make this structure the foundation of your speech, I will be happy and your points will be good.
 * I will try to be as objective as possible. That being said, there are some dumb arguments (Consult Ashtar, RVI's on T, timecube, etc) that I have a very low threshold for teams to answer.
 * Go for what your good at, whether it's politics and case or the psychoanalysis K. Once again, I expect a higher degree of explanation for teams that run an argument I am less familiar with.
 * Dropped arguments are true arguments, but larger level framing issues can be used to answer these 'drops'.
 * Pop culture jokes/references are awesome, you should get higher points assuming I recognize them.
 * Strategy over tech over truth
 * FLOW
 * Please call me Parth, not judge

=The Long Version:=

__Theory__
Since everyone gravitates towards this part of the judge philosophy, I'll start here. I've been a 2N since I started debate, but I see myself as pretty aff leaning on a lot of things. Basically, a lot of negative arguments (international fiat, the states cp, 3+ conditional worlds, consultation) are putting the aff at a severe disadvantage. Aff teams: call them out on this stuff, put theory arguments in the 2AC, explain why their world of debate is bad Neg teams: Have a nuanced defense of why your practice won't destroy debate and why it makes it better.

Despite my hatred of a lot of the things negatives are doing, I will try to be as objective as possible in evaluating theory debates. Also, slow down on theory, I have not flowed in a while and I am not the fastest flow in the world.

__The Kritik__
I've gone for it before, I'm mainly familiar with IR based kritiks (in the vein of the Security K). I have gone for psychoanalysis and Kappeler before and understand them to a degree. Kritikal arguments require explanation that goes beyond jargon. A block that goes for the K with a bunch of tricks (no VTL, floating PIK, etc.) without necessarily explaining what the literature behind the argument actually means will not get as many points as a block that fleshes out the entire argument and its relation to the affirmative. That said, K tricks are good things to put in the block to time pressure the 1AR, so I understand the strategic appeal of them.

Negative teams: Specific links and turns case arguments are great, quoting lines from the 1AC evidence that support your argument is even better. Have a good explanation of your alternative. I think the policy only framework doesn't make much sense from an academic and educational perspective Affirmative teams: Have specific defenses of your 1AC's methodology/epistemology/insert -ology here, it answers a lot of the negative's offense and tricks (ie insert -ology 1st, floating PIKs, etc). Depending on the K, the perm may be a good idea, but not always. Don't go for the perm on your heg is good aff against the security K. A nuanced framework on how you get to weigh your aff is a big game here

__Counterplans__
A lot of counterplans are either not theoretically legitimate or not competitive, affirmatives should call out the neg on these CPs. Ask me before the round about specific types of CPs and I'll give you an answer. I think advantage CPs and PICs are the bomb, you should run them, especially if the PIC competes off of the mandates of plan.

__Disads__
Run them, the more specific the better. Turns case analytics are usually more persuasive than cards, that said a good card doesn't hurt. Affirmatives should make internal link presses on dumb disads with weak internal links. 100% defense is in fact possible and link controls the direction of the disad.

__Politics__
Given how popular the politics DA is, it should probably get its own section. I ran the politics DA all the time when I debated. While it is awesome, there are definite flaws in the way the argument is structured, the aff should exploit these. I'm on the fence about intrinsicness.

__Case__
Some way of implicating the case should be in the 1NC, whether it is case defense, an impact turn or a group of specific links/epistemology take outs on the 1 off K strategy. Like I said on the DA section, 100% defense is possible, the same goes for advantages.

Well executed impact turn debates are among my favorite debates to judge. An advantage CP and impact turn debate can be a solid strategy against a new affirmative/aff you don't have a case neg to.

__Non-traditional affirmatives__
I didn't have much experience debating these in high school and much less judging them now. I think framework arguments are all right, but they end up boiling down to the neg saying the aff destroys debate and the aff saying that the current structure of debate is bad, without much clash. I think a framework grounded more in communications theory rather than a long list of Shively cards is the way to go. I also think that "outlefting" teams who read these affirmatives is generally a great strategy, especially given the huge, rich literature base behind these arguments.