Sanyal,+Ayan

I graduated from Lexington High School in 2010. I'm currently a freshman at Brandeis University
 * Background **

Bronx is my FIRST tournament on this topic. I know the general gist, but I do not know the aff or neg ground. Speed and things are fine with me, however, I have not heard a debate since…March 2009 so starting off a little slow will help me get back into it.  I hated it when judges said they were cool with an argument – but weren’t honest enough and had a bias against it – I’ll be open to any arguments but I will let you know the tricks you can pull to make me nod my head and give you good speaker points. For example, I feel like you have to be topical, but if you give me a good reason you don’t need to be, more power to you. That being said, I have only seen…1 team that has done this effectively…  In high school I ran mostly policy orientated arguments, but I did delve in some K literature. Most K debaters skew their philosophical ideas, so I usually think if a perm with a no alt argument is really convincing. - Another major thing – being a 2A all my high school, I have to say I have a slight aff bias, especially when it comes to topicality. By no means does that mean I will not vote neg, I also tend to give the 2nr leeway on theory issues. - Oh! I love debaters that work hard and show that through insanely specific good strategies. Specific always beats generic! - Don’t call me JUDGE - Ethos is EXTREMELY important – see below for more details As a 1n I took politics most of the time. I like politics. Key things: politics is usually bs, 2As need to have better evidence most of the time because the neg will/should PILE on cards in the block. I do believe uniqueness controls the direction of a link. I’m pretty offense-defense on the matter, but smart internal link analyticals will help mitigate the probability of the DA.  Impact work is important. so is turns case analysis. Magnitude, timeframe, and probability comparisons at the link and internal link level are also extremely important. But I don’t like the sub pointed A. Magnitude claims. They have to be COMPARATIVE. There is a great lecture at this site that delves into it by Michael Antonucci. http://georgetowndebateseminar.wikispaces.com/lectures  http://georgetowndebateseminar.wikispaces.com/lectures-2009 <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> Theory is cool, but it gets crazy when the 2A just spits out random intrinsicness stuff and the neg answers with more stuff. Theory debates on disads are moving to this strange blippy, not even sentences thing. You still have to make arguments. I will vote on intrinsicness, but you have to explain what my role as a judge is.
 * General**
 * <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Disads **<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">

I know the lit behind – cap k, terror talk, security, the prolif k, or development much better than things such as Nietzsche. I don't necessarily err aff or neg here, but definitely need more explanation. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Framework debates are a little unnecessary I think. I think all kritiks in general have a way of looking at the world and a way of looking at the round which should be said. But framework is by no means a theoretical issue. I don’t like voting on cheap v2l arguments, but if they are dropped I will.
 * Kritiks**

Do more of them. Even though I was a 2a in high school, I generally think that the 2ar gets away with far too much spin on case debates. Neg teams should utilize case debates more. It also gets you better speaker points when you destroy a team on their turf. – Copied from Jeff Boxer – I believe the same way.
 * Case debates**

I don't know the topic. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">But going for T with me in the back is probably not the best idea. Again, I was a 2A and I the only reason someone went for T was when we were A. blatantly not topical, B. Crushing the other team to bits. I like reasonability more than most other judges. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">If you go for T, you HAVE to win competing interps and that means more than just saying “race to the bottom.” On the neg, make "topical version of their case" args. I like those.
 * T**

if you read a 5 second Aspec shell. It’s cheap and not strategic. I will dock you speaker points because I want to discourage this kind of debating.

I was a 2a, so I have some aff sympathy, but I do tend to high threshold for theory. I also tend to default to reject the arg not the team, though I can easily be persuaded otherwise <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">On the neg, my partner and I did everything, from 3 condo advocacies to once (embarrassingly) a 1nr counterplan. The aff should just really suck it up and make strategic choices to deal with it. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> Delay, consult, and conditions counterplans are pretty bad. Agent CPs are sweeeet, I ran XO a lot. You still need to win those debates. The more specific a counterplan the better!!! Back to my specificity thing. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> I don’t like interpretations on theory. It seems kinda arbitrary. “well counterinterp, we can have 5 advocacies, if one is dispositional and one half of them deals with the state!” (never, ever say that in a debate, ever). Just make your arguments and chill. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> Don’t swear. Debate is a gentleman/gentlewoman’s activity. Excessive swearing will dock you points cus its not classy, but if it slips out once or twice fine..ok. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">I will not tolerate any kind of hateful speech whether it be racist, sexist, classist or anything. This will guarantee you the lowest speaker points I can give and a talk with your coach. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">ETHOS – I’d like to stress this for a second because it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to decide which way the round goes. Ethos for me means a confident, professional, extremely polite and kind but aggressive at the same time, someone who knows their shit and is here to get things done. If you show these things to me, I can guarantee you good speaker points. If you look like you don’t care, if you look crazy scared or unconfident, it will detract from your appeal. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Treat judges like a human – understand their point of view and appeal to their emotions through your logical and evidence based speech. It will do wonders, not just for me, but most other judges too. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">However, don’t think I’m your pal either and laugh at everything I say…I’ve seen teams do this to try to win a judges sympathy and it just fails… <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Have a good relationship with your partner, I hated those teams that were condescending to each other or embarrassed or whatever. Don’t show it in the round, have a talk later. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">
 * Theory**

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Ask about anything else. Or email. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Guitarroman1@gmail.com