Chakrabory,+Rityan

Syosset High School ’15 Harvard College ‘19

Hey kids <3 Writing this reminds me how much I miss debating in HS (Try and enjoy it without going crazy) I debated for Syosset High School in NY for four years and I have experience on both the national circuit and on more traditional circuits (CFLs, NFLs). I’ve judged Lay debate, Policy, VLD, and College-debate so I’m well versed in most unique styles of debate. I have particular expertise in Econ/Finance and Philosophy. Please ask me questions about my paradigm before round if there’s anything specific!

-General Tips

I’m a fan of good debate and spontaneous analysis/weighing. I enjoy arguments of all types but how you make those arguments and strategize in round is probably more important if anything. I have a strong paradigmatic preference for style rather than substance.

1) Please please please be clear. I’m fine with flowing speed, but remember that there is no way I’m voting on arguments that I didn’t even understand in the first place. This means understanding that there is a beauty in pauses, inflection and being an effective public speaker. Some speeds are clearly impossible to flow so don’t think your opponent struggling to keep up with what your saying is an advantage. Don’t try to win with gimmicks; win with your own intuition and skill. Being fast and having rhythm can be useful, but be smart too. That being said, I’ll say clear until you get clear but if I keep having to say it you’re going to get speaks docked.

Final note: I’m ok with slower speeds too. I respect traditional debaters who compete at the national circuit so don’t feel like you’ll be put at a disadvantage by slowing down and not getting through the entirety of the line-by-line.

2)Being persuasive and likable totally helps. If you’re funny/witty I’ll instantly grant you high speaks and you’ll gain a positional advantage in the round (straight 30’s to anyone who uses an original nerdy/pop-culture reference in round). I could never decide the round on subjective “persuasion” but remember that being confident and charming provides a perceptual dominance and effects speaks directly. FYI, this does not mean go out of your way to make jokes in round. 3) Explain and weigh- if you have tons of prep that’s awesome, but understand what your evidence says as well (don’t wave it around like a pretentious noob). 4) I respect the occasional hyperbole or “strategic half-truth”, but I’ll call for evidence so be reasonableish when you cut cards/say random things. 5) Cross-Ex is my favorite so use it wisely!

Follow above advice and winning my ballot should be possible no matter what position you run*** (refer to the DO NOTS for additional info/clarification)

-Topic Specific Update While I’m fairly up-to-date in terms of world policy, I haven’t read the stock evidence on the Jan Feb 2016 topic so don’t assume I know the specific tags already.

-Theory/Topicality
 * • Love it and find it super interesting. I think it opens the door to all sorts of unique strategic baiting. However, frivolous superficial theory can sometimes be risky so keep that in mind.
 * • I prefer unique shells specific to the in-round abuse
 * • I default to competing interps if no one makes any arguments either way on the assumption that if no decision calculus for theory debate is introduced, the debaters would have wanted me to approach the problem mechanically.
 * • No reason to assume fairness is a voter before the round, but most counter-args to fairness being a voter are stupid.
 * • Don’t make blippy theory spikes in the 1AC and then talk about them for 4 minutes in your next speech (remember, gimmicks are for amateurs).
 * • Paragraph theory is fine; I don’t particularly think shell format is really that great anyway.
 * • Meta-theory does not necessarily come before regular theory to me so weigh and make warranted claims
 * • I don’t love Disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it.

-Policy/Larping
 * • Slow down on card names and tags.
 * • I understand basic vocabulary of policy arguments, but explaining it is fairer to your opponent and will be looked on positively by me.
 * • I think extinction scenarios are funny and silly. Don’t spend too much time on it because a skilled debater can put serious mitigation on them with smart analytics and a reasonability check. I’ll evaluate them but they don’t strike me as particularly convincing.
 * • I default to an interpretation of debate (as is done in LD) where the resolution is the affirmative ground, even if the ground is parametricized (with a plan or something). This is super different from Policy fiat interpretations so make sure if you have a super specific counter-plan or something you explain why I should look at it in the first place since in most truth-testing paradigms counterplans aren’t particularly topical.
 * • If you face a counter-plan, planking or perming is reasonable and especially convincing to me (but remember that permutations are tests of competition rather than an advocacy)

-Tricks
 * • I don’t particularly like these and I probably won’t vote on this if your opponent makes any substantive or theory responses.
 * • Chill with the confusing functionality positions- no one will take you seriously

-Philosophy/Framework
 * • While I will most likely understand the majority of positions you run don’t assume that from the get-go. Explain all your arguments really well; I hold a high burden for this explanation as most judges should.
 * • Run whatever theory you want though. Clever analogies will exert positive upward pressures on your speaker points.
 * • Slow down for tags.
 * • Most arguments probably don’t have prefiat implications so arguments you run on the framework don’t interact with debater conduct in round/out of round. Understanding this will help you in life/debate.

-Critical Arguments (K’s)
 * • I don’t have too much experience dealing with ROTB stuff, but if you explain yourself clearly it should be fine
 * • Explicitly explain how other arguments on the flow contain the assumption you indict and why that is more important than anything else in the round.
 * • I need a clear description of your advocacy (slow down during this)
 * • K’s on theory or meta-K’s are fine.
 * • If your K isn’t that topical, conceding that and explaining why you think it’s relevant to the round is more reasonable and advantageous than flippantly arguing that it is topical.
 * • Please have an alternative if you’re running a fiat/implementation K. If not, “K’s must have alternatives” theory is very appealing to me.

-DO NOTS (**if you do these I’ll laugh, stop flowing, and unless you have a seriously ingenious secret mind-control vocal technique that you plan on employing, I won’t vote for you)
 * • Racism/homophobia/general discriminatory tendencies of the past
 * • Ad hominem attacks on your opponent/their school/their coach
 * • Being rude to your opponents in cross-ex/during a speech
 * • Arguments criticizing judge prefs or behavior out-of-round
 * • Stupid/Frivolous Theory Shells: Speed theory, Flash drive theory, Full Text of Card Disclosure theory, Race Theory, Gender Theory, Double-loss theory, Double-win Theory, etc.

Final Misc:
 * • Don’t spend too long flashing cases/evidence
 * • Don’t be annoying
 * • If you’re going to talk about touchy topics and go into gory detail, please employ trigger warnings (I’ll determine the right course of action after)
 * • Resolution-substance is always good.
 * • You do not have to employ above tactics to win. Using the above bullet point to comfort you, I find traditional debate to be quite enjoyable and anyone who can hold their own with poise and confidence will be in my good books.
 * • Have fun!