Bhagwandin,+Sam

Left-leaning 2N at Westwood high school in Austin Texas for 4 years (2011-2015).

In a sentence, “don’t worry this judge is fine for us.”

Whatever you say I evaluate. Please read the tips/preference section at the bottom if that’s all you have time for.

__**TOC (table of contents—no bids here, sorry): **__
 * Speaking
 * Which arguments do I like?
 * What stuff do I assume?
 * On framework/not reading a plan
 * My debate history
 * Tips/Preferences

__**Speaking **__
 * I’ll yell clear 1 million times and then stop flowing (I have no limit). I like speed and clarity and jokes and giving people 27s (kidding! Debate is really serious don’t make jokes.) You’ll start at a 28 and move up or down from there. Jokes are good. If you say something literally evil I’m going to intervene but besides that just you do you.

__**Which arguments are best in front of you?** __
 * Probably critical ones. Check this out though—really, I’m best for any argument you can make interesting. If that’s politics, do it. If that’s a conditions counterplan, do it. If it’s an argument about the Anthropocene, do it (please).
 * Make sure I get it, but also that I care. Maybe it’s slightly easier to embellish a critical debate with rhetorical flair and intrigue, but any flow can become genuinely captivating if you put thought into your defense of the position.
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">I’m best for the arguments you can connect to your opponents’ ideas, be that by comparing impacts, turning case, or creating K links.
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">I’m best for arguments you can explain accurately, but without contrived misdirection (perhaps “embellishing” the debate with “rhetorical flair” isn’t always the move—you gotta put in your explanatory work first).

__<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">**What stuff do you assume?** __
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">I wouldn’t call myself an offense/defense judge, maybe just offended and defensive. (In other words, I believe good defense can completely mitigate offense, and try-or-die is going to make-me-die if I hear it again. There’s a 1% risk I’ll vote on that argument.)
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">I wish people fleshed out competing interpretations/reasonability debates, so I didn’t have to default to competing interpretations.
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">The aff can say whatever they want, and the negative has the burden of proving it’s not desirable for me to endorse what the aff has said. [burden of the rejoinder]
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">The neg can introduce counter-advocacies, I assume voting negative is to endorse (all of) them unless you explicitly inform me otherwise. [conditionality]
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">The aff can permute these counter-advocacies, assuming they defend all the aff and some or all of the counter-advocacy, and nothing else, by way of the permutation. I can vote for the net-beneficial option. [competition]
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Neither team can lie in CX, and the affirmative cannot defend less than their initial advocacy. [severance]
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Dropped explanation is truth. [concessions]
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Theoretical objections are reasons to reject an argument, not a team. [punishment]
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">ALL those are all negotiable by way of warranted arguments.


 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">To summarize- **
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Good: having perms, dropped arguments being true (if explained), being condo, rejecting the arg not the team, having fiat (on either side), open cx, speed, the use of evidence, and mint chocolate chip ice-cream.
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Bad (and real): Try-or-die, doing severance, being intrinsicness, death, pain and suffering.

__**<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">On framework/not reading a plan **__
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">I hope we can get through this debate without any nuclear wars happening and with overviews not exceeding 20-80 seconds in length. Neg: contextualize offense to 2AC counter-definitions. Both sides: treat it like a big impact debate. Don’t forget to explain the link between your interpretation and your offense—why are you the only side that accesses that stuff.
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Inclusiveness is generally good—limitless ground is generally bad. Please navigate the waters in-between with care.
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">You can do performance stuff that’s cool I don’t think it’s that different from reading a policy aff except you’re probably more persuasive and saying things I’ll care about.


 * __<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">What did you go for? __**
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Senior year I mostly went for kritiks on the negative, and about 70% of my 1ARs were in response to framework. You can look at my wiki (tinyurl.com/pxoddsq) if you want more clarification than that.
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">The main strategy my partner and I relied on to win debates was letting our personality come through really strong, which insulated arguments with humor, confidence, and a dose of pure reality. Being a genuine person in debate, not a robot, that’s what makes it the best. It’s more entertaining, engaging, and educational. Pretty much all the e-words that matter.

__**<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Tips (preferences): **__
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Learn your opponents’ names and use them (sometimes).
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Don’t say things are conceded or that your opponent “doesn’t have a warrant.” Both hurt your case by setting a low threshold for their response (all they have to muster is one cross application or one warrant….). Just say your stuff I’ll figure the rest out.
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Tags shouldn’t summarize evidence; they should be an argument, made by the debater. Evidence is merely support for what *you’re* saying. Debate is about you, my friend.
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Do comparison, not explanation. Saying “our evidence is amazing because it [has these characteristics]” doesn’t *compare* it to another thing, it explains something. If you need help, use the word “whereas.” For instance, “our impact is bigger because it [has these characteristics], WHEREAS theirs does not, BECAUSE it’s [from The Onion].” (hopefully your comparison is a little more complex than that...)
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Say “chance” instead of “risk”