Balagurusamy,+Kaushal

Lexington LD ‘17 Cal Berkeley ‘21

General: Debate is a communicative activity where truths are contingent on your justification and construction of them – that said I’ll vote off of whatever is justified. Debate is a testing space for arguments – this means that whatever paradigm you justify whether that’s poetic performance or reasonability – that’s how things will work. I reserve the right to make particular judgements that go against the paradigm or choices in specific issues not listed based on new circumstances that arise I’m impartial but understand psychologically people will be biased towards arguments that are well explained and clearly explicated because I can understand your intentions and framing better – that’s the only way ethos impacts things but it matters. Persuasion, research, presentation are all crucial for debate to make you all great reasoners, researchers, and talkers – those will help you in career and make the world a better place – I’ll do my role as a judge to regulate practices like so. Big picture framing is important so long as it resolves the line by line – pathos alone is insufficient but required

PF: - I’ve talked to PF people on my team and debated it for fun a couple times within my team, and since I did LD I’ll evaluate things similarly to a mutually agreed implicit framework or framework/contention duality

LD: General: - Speed is fine, please be clear, I'll call it as many times necessary but I will get frustrated and dock speaks - I won't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, it is your responsibility to explain that - Prep stops when your flash drive leaves your computer – making speech docs is part of prep - I'm comfortable with most arguments as long as you can explain and weigh them explicitly and clearly - Disclosure is good norm- if you don't disclose or disclose insufficiently or it's brought up in the round, I will dock your speaks by 1-5 speaker points (based on strength of this violation) from whatever I would have given you, but I will still evaluate the theory debate and the rest of the round impartially – I just need to deter undisclosure - You must make your evidence available - I enjoy policy debates the most, please weigh - I also enjoy theory debates that are well executed

Defaults - *I’ll only use default paradigms if both debaters don’t assume a common paradigm or explicitly argue for one, or implicitly justify one – I try to keep my defaults the least interventionist as possible so even if you don’t know about it, it won’t affect your strategy - Theory: Competing interps, RVI’s, Drop the Debater - Comparing Worlds - Framework – syllogistics over floating justifications, epistemic confidence

Policy-esque arguments: - Impact comparison and weighing is crucial, otherwise i have no idea where to look first and will read your cards because that’s the only non interventionist understanding - Utilize argument diversity - Framing is very important, if you don't explain implications of winning arguments, then i don't know their use even if you have won them - please compare evidence - i personally think that hard work should be rewarded, so well executed strategies will increase your speaks so will being well researched

Phil: - I’m well read on analytical philosophy, I’m less well read on postmodernism and continental philosophy but as long as you can clearly articulate them syllogistically – it’ll be super easy to evaluate, just don’t throw buzzwords around because then I’ll just think you’re recycling backfiles and trying to confuse everyone - be comparative

Kritik: - Very familiar with cap, ID ptx, antiblackness, CLS, security, and other policy kritiks – less familiar with postmodernism - Please have good evidence and diversify/nuance your kritik and when you respond to it - Tech and ethos are both very important on the K debate, make sure that you can do both - Long dumps and generic responses aren't that great, make them better by tailoring it to the round and explaining the 2NR or 1AR against these very well - I am pretty convinced by policymaking arguments against these, that being said, be super responsive and err on the side of overexplanation against these - Not well read in high theory, my understanding will solely depend on your ability to explain it.

Theory: - Default to competing interps, rvi, drop debater- will still be convinced by arguments for other sides - Frivolous theory: I will listen to it because it is strategic but if it's clear that it's used as argument avoidance and just for strategy rather than actual abuse, I’ll destroy your speaks to reflect your pathetic strategy - Good theory debates are better to watch especially when they are utilized well against tricks and abuse - weigh and frame – pure line by line just shows me your ignorant to the overall picture

Tricks: - Love intelligent and unique tricks with interesting applications because they show the creative research that debate should value – don’t recycle, because it just shows your lack of unoriginality and research - I’ll nuke your speaks to deter old recycled tricks like rodl indexicals and the standard LHP/scarsdale 2012 stuff - Implications need to be clear in the initial speech - these include: a prioris, triggers, INCOHERENT framework applications, etc.

Ethics: - If you are caught clipping, it will result in a Loss 0. That being said, if you accuse someone of an evidence ethics violation and you are proven to be wrong, the same punishment will be given to you. Accidentally skipping 2 words in a card is not clipping – record your speeches but not your opponents – they should do that to avoid law violations - Clearly miscut evidence or misrepresentation should be brought up by opposing debaters in round as evidence indicts – evidence can be interpreted in various ways, don’t think it should be required to drop them but you can read a theory shell, I just don’t think it’s a smart strategy - If your opponent says some really messed up stuff like racism is good or something I’ll nuke their speaks to mess them up for the tournament, but if you can’t beat such a pathetically racist argument it shows your lack of skill – I need kids and the new liberal generation to be able to stand up and justify, tackle the most bigoted of speech so that you are informed and ready to destroy the racists of the real world, you will not get by in the real world expecting people to “be liberal” – which means I won’t automatically vote against them but will dock their speaks.