Shah,+Amar

Green Valley HS (NV) ‘15 Cornell University (NY) ‘19

I debated policy 3 years for Green Valley High School (2A/1N) Not super familiar with the surveillance topic, but I debated a ton of rounds on Oceans and LA.

Short Version Debate the style that best suits your skills and interests. Don’t compromise your best strategies because of the judge. Tech > Truth. Be reasonable with your strategies and don’t test my threshold for overly tricky or asinine ideas - you’ll likely get low speaker points/a loss. However, a well executed subtle trick that develops into a multi-speech strategy will likely get a laugh and good speaker points.

Aff Comments I’m comfortable with both topical/traditional affirmatives as well as more abstract leftist affirmatives. I don’t have a strong preference between the two and will evaluate the argument as you present it. However, I do prefer traditional affirmatives with clear stories and relevant impact scenarios (3 well constructed I/L stories are better than 10 blippy impact scenarios). I would like Non-Traditional affs to be topically relevant and provide some sort of meaningful education or purpose.

Neg Comments Again read what you enjoy. I have a decent familiarity with most common K literature, although I’m not well versed on identity literature. Arguments I’ve read include Security, Biopolitics, Cap, Nietzsche, Chow. If you explain your arguments (ie not buzzwords/random phrases), I will evaluate so don’t be afraid but don’t assume I’m 100% familiar. Half of my 1NR’s in high school were politics, so a well developed Disad/Politics argument will also be appreciated

Specifics Topicality - Should have well defined interpretation, violation, and standards. Reasonability is debatably good. I tend to agree that T/Framework is the best strategy against non/un-topical affs but that requires good explanation on the whole.

Disads Disads are a lot of fun and can make for a really enjoyable debate if they are well explained and related to the affirmative. Politics is also very interesting as long as the link is apparent and the story of the DA isn’t too convoluted.

CP <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Generic counterplan debates aren’t too interesting, but a well coupled counter plan and net benefit can be cool. Don’t assume I’ll kick the CP for you and assume that it’s conditional unless specified. Winning a high risk of a Disad and a risk of the counterplan solving better than the aff makes for an easy neg ballot. For the aff team, point out solvency deficits, shady theory points, put offense on the CP, and make warranted permutations (more than 3 is probably not legit).

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Kritiks <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">As I mentioned above, I’m familiar with most broad types of Kritik literature and will listen to both. If you have a more nuanced kritik, please read it and explain it well for an in depth debate. Links to the case are probably disadvantages to the permutation and most alternatives don’t likely do much but tricks + explanation can push that either way. Framing the Kritik top level is important for accessing a lot of offense on either side, so a clean/concise overview will help sway my ballot. Keep overviews to the point, not intentionally long.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Case <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">The case debate is important and a lot of people seem to ignore it. Specific lines/warrants taken from the opponent's cards will make for great case arguments. Reading Fettweis ‘11 - Heg Fails is not the same as 2-3 cards about the plan and its specific solvency advocate. I won’t vote neg on case defense alone, but some smart case arguments coupled with a good K or DA strategy can be devastating.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Theory <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I’m not a huge fan of theory debates because they end up being block heavy/easy outs to avoid substance debates. However, sometimes they are necessary to pressure a neg team that is being abusive. 2-3 conditional advocacies are pretty safe. I think mild contradictions are safe for a neg team, but dedev + a politics DA w/ an Econ scenario are problematic and I will vote aff most likely if they concede one and use it as offense against the other.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Traditional Affs <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">As stated above, I like traditional affs with clear impact scenarios and well warranted claims. Half of my senior year I read a soft left aff with really well warranted evidence, so I very much enjoy that type of aff although topicality is always in question with small affs. If you’re a straight up team do your thing.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Non - Traditional Affs <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Read them if you enjoy them and don’t be afraid to discuss your argument in detail. The other half of my senior year I read a non-traditional aff all of the usual aff tricks (fiat not real, framework is policing, state bad, we = the people, antonio 95, etc.) although I think the ones related to the content of your aff are best. I think T/Framework is the best strategy as I said against non-traditional affs and those debates are usually the most interesting.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Speaking/Misc. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I’m comfortable with comprehensible speeds. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Clarity is the most important thing when speaking. Conveying ideas between multiple parties is a nexus point in this activity, so speak in a way that can be understood. If I don’t catch what you say I likely won’t flow it and that matters more than reading an extra two PC not key cards. If it becomes excessive I’ll yell clear 1-2 times and then I’ll stop flowing.
 * <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.5;">Although Ahmad Bhatti was faster than Jeffrey Horn, sometimes it was easier to flow Jeffrey due to clarity. Even better than both was Cade Cottrell because it was possible to understand all of his words. **

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Speaker points are arbitrary but I’ll follow a pretty standard scale

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">*Good jokes about Green Valley ~ Las Vegas will earn extra speaker points

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">27.5 - Not particularly clean/clear/knowledgeable <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">28.0 - Decently clear/knows most of their arguments/sometimes difficult to understand <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">28.5- Solid debater good speaking style/understanding of ideas/ very few moment of unclarity <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">29.0 - Clear/concise/plans ahead with speeches and really understands debate <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">29.5- Top 10 speakers in the pool/good luck in outrounds <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Anything below would be from forfeit/excessively rude behavior -- which isn’t acceptable/extraneous circumstances.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Debate is a lot of fun, so enjoy yourselves and learn something new. Good Luck.