Kler,+Satveer

Satveer Kler (they/them/theirs) James Logan HS ‘14 University of California, Santa Cruz '18 (current school; not debating): studying Psychology and Creative Writing (aka I am not keeping up with any of the literature you're reading most likely whether it be policy or critical) Constrains - James Logan

Note: I am also looking for a remote coaching position for the 2017-2018 school year. Email me @ skler@ucsc.edu if you're interested. Thanks!

I competed both locally and on the national circuit, clearing at national tournaments occasionally my junior and senior years. I was mainly a 2A, but my senior year I was both the 2A and 2N. Bottom line is that you should do what you want and have fun doing it. Rounds judged on education Topic: none (avoid acronyms if possible) last updated 9/17/2017

TL; DR version: I really don't care what arguments you make as long as you answer the other side's arguments and impact out your own you should be good. I am going to be that bitch who asks you for flow paper and pens just as a heads up

DAs: The higher up in the aff’s internal link chain that your turns case analysis starts, the better. I think terminal defense is a thing and there can be a 0% risk of a DA provided that you win the right args. I think it is important to establish framing questions such as these early on in the debate. IE does a 1% risk of a link mean I still vote neg? Does the magnitude of the link trump uniqueness or does uniqueness control the direction of the link? Do empirics trump the aff’s/neg’s defense? Who has the most predictive evidence? How do your impacts interact? My biggest predispositions are probably with the ptx DA and am generally aff-leaning on theory args on ptx (ie intrinsicness, vote no, fiat solves the link, etc)

CPs: These should compete both textually and functionally and ideally have solvency advocate(s) in the 1NC. If your idea of competition is defining the words “should”, “substantial”, or “Resolved”, then it will probably be an uphill battle trying to win that particular CP in front of me. PICs are great if you have a decent solvency advocate and a non-trivial NB. Plan-plus CPs are a reason to vote aff. If judge kick is a thing you should probably tell me in the neg block ASAP. Permutations are just a test of competition and perm theory is usually just a reason to reject the perm, not the team. Also, counterplans have multiple parts so be creative with your permutations! SLOW DOWN ON CP TEXTS.

Ks: These were the majority of my 2NRs my senior year along with the occasional T 2NRs. I would say I am most familiar with identity based criticisms (ie queer theory, colonialism, critical race theory, etc). I am less familiar with post-structuralist high theory. If you are going for high theory in front of me, I would advise clearly articulating what the aff actually does and giving me a weighing mechanism to compare your impacts to more material violence oriented impacts. I think with any K, it is important to understand the literature and theories behind the philosophy before you turn it into a debate argument. This means you shouldn’t be relying on buzz words. I also hate overviews; just do whatever you were gonna do on the line by line. It is helpful if you give me historical examples to help your claims whether it be to back up your link work, alternative, or permutation(s), historical examples are definitely a good thing. As with counterplan perm theory, I think K perm theory is usually a reason to reject the permutation and not the team. If necessary, or if it is relevant, give me a Role of the Ballot. Also, links should be geared toward the aff and you should ideally have specifc cards/anlaytics in the 1NC. SLOW DOWN ON ALT TEXTS.

T: I think this is an underutilized position in the negative arsenal and teams should run T more. In a scenario in which you don’t win a topical version of the aff, I think you can still win T provided that you prove why the aff’s interpretation is worse for debate (IE why it explodes predictable limits, why it is worse for aff/neg ground, etc) and you win your interp and that the aff violates your interp. It is very important you weigh impacts and tell me why one subsumes the other or why it should be evaluated first (IE why does research based education trump clash based education or why does ground based fairness trump impact based fairness); questions like these are important and need to be resolved if you plan on going for T in front of me. In terms of the aff side, I think providing sufficient defense to their standards (why you don’t explode limits, why the ground you allow is fair, why functional limits or other constrains check, etc) is important to securing an aff ballot. Also, tell me how to evaluate T early on. Am I using competing interpretations or am I using a different paradigm? Why should I default to reasonability in this particular instance (don’t just give me reasons why it is good in a vacuum) and why is your interp/debate you allow reasonable? MAKE SURE YOU SLOW DOWN ON T SHELLS IN THE 1NC.

FW/‘clash of civs’: I’m generally unpersuaded by framework arguments that state, “you must defend a world of USFG action” and am generally more biased towards the aff on these type of arguments. I think framework arguments can be more persuasive in front of me if they are treated more as reasons as to why grass-roots activism or social movements solve. IE read things like why reforming the state is necessary for coalition building or why it is necessary for other methodologies and I’ll be much more persuaded by your framework arguments. Other than that, stasis is probably a good thing so the aff should be prepared to lay out a roadmap for how their methodology functions and creates some form of change. I grow more sympathetic towards the neg on this question if cross ex on this issue becomes nebulous and there is no articulation of how you create change.

K affs: Make sure that you are giving a clear explanation of what the aff does/functions because I don’t want to sit there and have to figure that out for myself after the debate. (I'm looking at you teams who don't defend anything and just devolve their entire aff into the permutation) I don’t think you have to defend a fiated implementation of an enactment of a plan by the USFG but I do think that you should have a defense of why your aff is related to the resolution/important as a pre-requisite to debating the resolution. I’m open to you arguing resolution bad-type arguments as well, just make sure you have a compelling answer/defense to stasis args and framework teams. I'm a lot more sympathetic to K of T/FW based args than most judges, so use this to your advantage.

"Non-Traditional" teams: I'm fine with whatever, just make sure you explain how your arguments function in the round and defend your methodology/ideology/1AC content. I do believe in method debates affs should still get perms if negs can still have PICs and whatnot.

Theory: I evaluate these args similar to how I evaluate T. Win an interpretation, win reasons why your interpretation is good and why the aff/neg makes debate worse and we have a done deal. I don’t really like it when these are just random five second blips. In terms of conditionality, two non-contradictory worlds are probably okay. However, the more unconditional and/or contradictory worlds you add, the more I will become sympathetic to aff theory args. I don't think I have any other theory pre-dispositions.

Case: Please read more args than just five year old impact defense. I understand not everyone has the resources to make a case neg to every aff but do something creative. Most advantages have really shitty internal links and are very poorly constructed anyway, like I doubt the entirety of US power projection is predicated off of one random military action caused by the plan. Much less would all the authors in any given advantage agree with each other. I'd much rather have you make carded or even analytic responses to internal links/ux/other parts of the advantage rather than just rehashing old impact defense.

Speaks: below 27: made extremely poor strategic decisions or said something offensive 27-27.9: you're getting there but need to fix a lot of things 28-28.9: you debated well but you made a couple of strategic errors or made some decisions without foresight or purpose 29-29.9: you debated exceptionally well and made strategic decisions that showed clear foresight and purpose 30: you're basically flawless and amazing and yassss you sleighed PS I love the TV show How to Get Away with Murder and if you make How to Get Away with Murder references I’ll give you .2 more speaker points than what I would have normally given you.

Misc: Prep ends when your flashdrive comes out of your computer. Email chains are fine too, do what you got to do. Speed is fine, but clarity over speed any day. Ultimately I still think this is a communications based activity and you should never sacrifice your ethos for speed. I'll yell clear three times and if it doesn't get better after the third time, I stop flowing. Saying racist/homophobic/sexist/transphobic/ableist/eurocentric/other offensive things will be reflected in the ballot. Don’t be overly aggressive. There is a fine line between being assertive and being a prick. This activity should not become a toxic space for its participants. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me or email me at skler@ucsc.edu.