Ramesh,+Kaavya

Kaavya Ramesh Michigan State University 2010-2014 TOC 2014:

__Really short version__: I debated for MSU for four years, and much of what I think about debate is derivative from Will Repko. I believe some of the most important things about the activity are (as the Duck used to say) "character, commitment, teamwork, hard work," so, to me, the best debates reflect those things. Hard work, specificity, and mutual respect are important. The point of the debate is to determine whether the plan is a net good or net bad idea relative to an alternative (the status quo, a competitive CP, etc.) If that sounds like the game you want to play, then I'm probably a good judge for you.

Brief note specific to high school: I really haven't judged many debates on this high school topic, so you might need to explain topic-specific things to me more than to other judges who have judged high school all year.

__Longer version__: Topic adherence and non-traditional affs: The affirmative must be topical. This is different from "tie to the topic" -- I don't think it is sufficient to be "kind of related to the topic" or "topical-ish." My belief is that we have selected a resolution, and once that resolution is released, we should abide by it. That said, though, any form of evidence or methodology can be justifications for preferring a topical action, as long as you tell me why it's better than the evidence or method that the neg has presented for why the aff shouldn't be preferred. Example: evidence that isn't from PhDs, think tanks, or traditional policy sources can be reasons why the plan is a net good idea, as long as you successfully justify it.

Speaker points: I will award speaker points based on a combination of clarity, ethos, communication skills, and technical proficiency. If the tournament provides a speaker point scale or guide, I will abide by it. I //absolutely// will not tolerate in-round behavior that is mean, rude, or seems like it is bullying the other team, and I really dislike swearing in debates. If your behavior crosses any of those lines, I will dock points accordingly.

Truth v. tech: I tend to read a lot of evidence after debates, and evidence quality fairly strongly shapes how I make decisions. In-round tech obviously matters, but a dropped argument isn't automatically "true" unless it is either supported by 1) warranted explanation with an impact to what winning that argument means or 2) evidence that includes warrants and impacts to winning the argument (preferably both, though, in my ideal world).

Try-or-die: Despite the fact that I went for this argument a lot, I don't think it makes very much sense as a way to make decisions. Presumption actually makes more sense to me than try-or-die. If the aff clearly doesn't solve and there is a DA to doing it, then I'm not sure why we should do it just for the sake of doing something.

Uniqueness v. Link as framing: I don't usually, as a default position, think that uniqueness controls the direction of the link, and "only a risk" doesn't necessarily make sense to me. If something is bad in the status quo, that's not a reason to take an action that might make it worse. For example -- even if the economy is weak right now, that doesn't seem like a reason to pass a policy that would make the economy worse, using the logic that "the economy is bad right now, so there's 'only a risk' that the plan can make it better." Uniqueness also probably exists in degrees and not in black-and-white terms.

Critiques (on the neg): Since I see the point of the debate as determining whether the aff is a net good or net bad idea, the K needs to be a reason why the plan is a bad idea, not just a reason why some underlying assumption the aff makes is bad. I'm also pretty on board with Casey Harrigan's "judge choice" idea (http://www.georgiadebate.org/2009/11/judge-choice-the-illogic-of-representational-critique), so I tend to think that a critique of advantage 1 is just a reason why advantage 1 shouldn't be the justification for preferring the plan, not a reason why doing the plan would be bad (assuming there was an advantage 2 that still stood as a reason to do the plan). Most K teams that lose in front of me lose because 1) their K is not a reason why doing the plan would be a bad idea and/or 2) the alternative doesn't make any sense as an actual option.

Small rant about critiques of the state and civil society (Wilderson-esque arguments): I have absolutely no idea why an aff that says "we should lift the Cuban embargo because that would improve US-Cuba relations" is committing to a broader philosophy of state reformism vis-a-vis civil society. An aff that would ACTUALLY be committing to state reformism vis-a-vis civil society would be more along the lines of "pass an anti-discrimination law because that would be a good development for social justice." As it stands, though, I'm really not sure why the following scenario is logical: Aff - "lift the Cuban embargo because it would be good for US-Cuba relations." Neg - "Don't do that because, when the state does unrelated things that attempt to mitigate racism, sexism, and inequality, it fails." I'm just not sure that logically makes sense. Also, if the negative wins that the aff's framework is bad, that's not a reason why the aff auto-loses -- it's just a reason why I evaluate the aff in whatever framework the neg has won is preferable.

CP competition: I am extremely skeptical of CPs that are an example of a way in which the plan could be done. Even if the aff is unlikely to be done in a certain way, if it is //possible// for the aff to be done that way, then I don't think CP'ing out that is competitive. For example, even if the plan would //most likely// be done unconditionally, if there is a possible interpretation of the plan text that means it //could// ostensibly be done with conditions, I would probably vote on "perm - do the CP" if a team was aff against a conditions CP. I also don't think CPs that include the entirety of the plan are competitive.

CP theory: Conditionality is usually good, but I'm somewhat grumpy about more than 2 conditional worlds. My default is that theoretical arguments about why a particular CP is bad are a reason to reject the CP and not the team.

Topicality: I'm much more interested in what is actually topical than what //should// be topical. My default position is that my job is to interpret whether the plan is factually an example of the resolution, not whether it would be better for debate if it was accepted as an example of the resolution. Therefore, precision means a bit more to me than "debate-y" impacts like limits, aff flexibility, etc. Interpretations must be supported by high-quality evidence, and I'm skeptical of interpretations that seem contrived for the sake of limiting out the aff or for the sake of maintaining aff flex.