Rastogi,+Ajay


 * Ajay Rastogi **
 * Katy Taylor ‘13 **
 * UT ‘17 **

Hey y'all, I debated for Katy Taylor and I am now a student at the University of Texas at Austin. I was a 2A/1N in high school, where I mostly read kritikal arguments. At times, my partner (bless his poor little fascist soul) wanted to read more conventional arguments such as politics/CP. With that being said, most of my affs were kritikal in nature, some with plan texts and some without. On the negative, we were primarily kritikal as well. However, don’t let my background stop you from doing what you would like to do. I will keep my own ideologies out of judging. Be nice, be funny, be you. Do what you do best and have fun! Also, I like food so bring me food.


 * Specifics **
 * Speed/Clarity – ** I emphasize clarity over speed; you can be the fastest person in the world, but if you are not clear, then I will not listen after warnings. Speed is not how fast you can spout the words but how fast you can communicate the words. Especially on tags of Ks, you should probably slow down a wee bit. If you just spread through cards, most people kinda tune you out. Emphasis and ethos = more speaker points.


 * Kritiks ** – as I have said, this was my bread and butter in high school. We have read arguments ranging from Nietzsche to Bataille to Baudrillard to DnG to death good to Psychoanalysis and beyond. However, don’t assume this means you can just spout out buzzwords and get away with it. You need to break it down and explain the argument; yelling the word becoming and the word ontology means nothing absent a sufficient explanation to how those things fit into the debate round. Also, one of the most important things I believe in a K debate is a coherent explanation of how the alternative functions and what the world of the alternative looks like. Also, as hypocritical as it may sound, kritiks that are/seems specific to the aff are much more persuasive. Even if it is a “generic K”, specific link analysis that explains how the aff does blah blah and that stuff is bad is much more convincing than persay a generic “they say war, that is security thought, oh no extinction”. As the affirmative against kritiks, you want to set up some sort of framework and also engage with the substance of the Kritik.


 * Kritikal Affs ** – I do not believe that there is a necessity for a plan text but I do want the affirmative to be in the direction of the topic, or at least about the topic. However, as long as you robustly defend your method/the importance of your advocacy (even if it has nothing to do with the topic), I’m down with that too. If you are going against a kritikal aff and you are the framework type of person, then you will have to paint a very persuasive picture as to why the affirmative should be excluded. Very generic framework arguments about how they kill debate are very unpersuasive. Framework arguments that engage with the framework the K aff sets up as well as well-impacted arguments such as portable skills are much more persuasive. But I have to be honest. I really want you to engage with the substance of the aff and I feel like most framework debates become an easy cop-out that teams use to avoid engaging with the message of the aff.


 * Disadvantages – ** I love timely and specific disadvantages. The more specific the disadvantage to the aff, the more interesting/persuasive. My partner loved politics. I didn’t. (hint hint) You can read a politics disad, but make sure you have decent evidence and is unique. I will probably call for evidence.


 * Counterplans -** I think plan plus counterplans are solved by perm do both. I like really tricky PICs. I usually err neg on theory questions such as PICs bad, consult CP bad, etc, but they can definitely be won in front of me. However, I don’t want the 2AR to be PICs bad. Just engage with the substance yo.


 * Topicality: ** I generally default to competing interps but can be persuaded otherwise (This is just the position i start out with in the debate - if you can win a disad to this preference then I will view the debate through a lens of reasonability and the same the other way). Topicality is generally a voting issue. T doesn’t cause genocide, but certain impact turns to T can be persuasive.


 * Case – ** woefully underused part of the debate. These arguments can be so strategic and when used creatively, they can be one of the most important parts of the debate. I’m not talking only defense claims like ECONOMIC COLLAPSE =/= EXTINCTION, but also impact turns and straight turns to their scenarios. Those are coolio. A well-done and well-engaged case debate = more speaker points. Smart cross-applications on either side = more speaker points.


 * Theory ** – You can win condo bad and other theory arguments, but most of the time those debates get really muddy and really gross and really not fun to evaluate. A lot of theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument not the team. But sometimes, I can be persuaded otherwise.


 * Other Stuff **
 * CX – ** a lot of debates can be won in cross-x and a good cross-x can be very devastating and very positive for speaker points (or negative if you seem like you have no idea what you are talking about). Win links to your stuff in cross-x, win no-links to their stuff in cross-x, etc. I will listen to cross-x: shit’s important.
 * Ethics **- don’t cheat, don’t lie, don’t be rude, don’t say messed up things. There is a line between sassy/funny and being an ignorant asshole. I’m fine with cursing in round if done correctly/appropriately/moderately.


 * I don’t default offense-defense** meaning I won’t be afraid to vote aff if I believe they have 100% terminal defense on your DA. Just saying the words “they only have defense so there is a risk of our impacts” is not enough in front of me. THAT BEING SAID…DON’T ONLY GO FOR DEFENSE BECAUSE IT IS STILL EXTREMELY HARD TO WIN 100% TERMINAL DEFENSE CLAIMS. Same for things like no solvency, aff solves the pic, etc.


 * +.5 speaks for any team that uses less than 1 minute prep and wins**


 * Tl;;dr?**


 * NEG – DO WHAT YOU DO BEST. MAKE STUFF SPECIFIC TO THE AFF AND ENGAGE WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THEIR ARGUMENTS. DON’T BE MESSY.**
 * AFF –DO WHAT YOU DO BEST. ENGAGE WITH THE NEG’S ARGUMENTS. MAKE SMART AFF CROSS-APPLICATIONS/ANSWERS. DON’T BE MESSY.**
 * ALL- HAVE FUN AND DON’T BE MEAN. GIVE ME FOOD. I’m open to all forms of argumentation so do you, not what you think will make me happy (that being food and money)**