Desai,+Shrey

Updated 12/08/17

Email chain: shreydesai@me.com

I'm a sophomore at the University of Texas at Austin. I debated LD at Saratoga High School for four years on the local and national circuits. My junior and senior year, I cleared at all bid tournaments I attended and won speaker awards at CPS, Stanford, and Berkeley.

Debate is your space to make arguments you're passionate about, so I will vote for anything you have prepared for this tournament. I don't have a lot of preconceived notions or strong opinions about debate anymore, so I will be as tabula rasa as possible. However, it's impossible to be completely devoid of opinions, so here are a few things you might want to know about my background.

General
 * I will disclose my decision, feedback, and speaks.
 * If I nod, I like the arguments you're making. If I do a hand twirl, you should move on to your next argument.
 * I will try my best not to intervene, but that means debaters must present a clear decision calculus to link arguments to. This doesn't necessarily mean having a value or value criterion – burdens, standards, ROBs, and ROJs suffice. Absent that, I will try to form my own opinion on what the decision calculus is, which will often lead to unexpected and undefined results. To avoid that, always weigh and impact back to a clear decision calculus.
 * Always, always, always begin your 2N/2A with an overview that explains what the decision calculus is, the arguments in the round, and the issues you are going for. I have found that the weighing that debaters do between arguments and evidence heavily influence my decision.

Speed
 * Feel free to go fast, but clarity is usually an issue – I will yell "slow" or "clear" if applicable. Emailing your speech doc is not an excuse to be blippy and unclear, especially in the 1A/2N. If there are analytics or arguments in your doc that I wasn't able to flow, I probably won't consider it in my decision.
 * Please slow down on important things such as analytics, plan/CP texts, theory interpretations, a prioris, etc. If you're going too fast, I might ask you to repeat it.

Philosophical Frameworks
 * I was primarily a framework debater and read a lot of util, practical reason, and virtue ethics. However, this doesn't mean I will naturally understand your metaethical framework with ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological considerations.
 * Read whatever you want, but make sure it's clear, warranted, and explained well if obscure. I will probably hold you at a higher burden to clearly explain and understand these arguments.
 * Interaction at the framework level is super important – I won't discount theoretical or preclusive reasons to prefer your framework, but if both sides are making these sorts of arguments, there needs to be a tiebreaker. Weighing on the framework level will make me very happy.

Plans/CP
 * Plans/CPs are pretty cool. Debating about specific pieces of evidence, presenting interesting advantages/DAs, and weighing between arguments are all wonderful. I personally love plans/CPs with low-magnitude, realistic impacts under rule utilitarian frameworks.
 * Explain policy vocabulary and slow down on card names, tags, and texts. I probably won't be able to flow the contents of your card unless you slow down and explain exactly what is going on. I will mostly rely on your tags and author names to navigate these sorts of debates.

Theory/T
 * I absolutely love theory/T debate – if it's an interesting and developed shell, it will reflect well on your speaks. In your 1A/2N/2A, please give good overviews and weigh between different standards. Strength of link is also super important – if there are multiple voters, I will likely consider the voter with the most persuasive offense.
 * Default to competing interpretations, drop the debater, no RVI, and theory as the highest layer. However, these are just defaults – I can be persuaded the other way easily.
 * Paragraph theory is fine, but make sure it's well-warranted and easy to follow. If you have a block of analytics in the bottom of your aff, please number the arguments. I'm probably not going to be able to flow dense sentences absent clear numbering.

Kritiks
 * I didn't read a lot of Ks, but am still relatively familiar with K literature. I know the general, stock arguments surrounding capitalism, biopower, antiblackness, etc., but I will probably not immediately understand complex, nuanced arguments. For example, I don't really know what "blackness is ontological" means, so explain your vocabulary well.
 * As always, make sure your K is well-explained – a short explanation before/after a card goes a long way. Specific links to the AC/NC are also helpful – your generic link evidence will most likely not make much sense, so explain how it fits into the bigger picture of the aff/neg world.
 * Be very clear about the role of the ballot or the role of the judge, ensuring your K fits into a decision calculus. This is especially important when your K interacts with a philosophical framework or theory impacts. Absent this analysis or weighing, it will be extremely difficult to understand how your arguments interact with other arguments in the round.

Speaks
 * I try to average a 28.5, but I generally give high speaks – if you are decent, expect a 29+.
 * Speaks are primarily based on strategy, coherency, and entertainment. Plus points for flashing/emailing documents before speeches, pausing between flows, presenting unique arguments, giving good overviews, and referring to my paradigm.