Chaki,+Sumon

Sumon Chaki River Hill '13 University of Maryland '17 Updated: September 2013

I debated for 4 years at River Hill (Capitol Debate) and I don't know anything about the Latin America topic.

Do whatever you want. If you're a philosophical mastermind that understands the inner workings of Deleuze's psyche and you've created a scrumptious criticism out of it then go for it, just make sure I understand it. Daryl Burch coached me in high school so I've been exposed to a wide variety of argumentation and I would classify myself as a judge who is partial to "traditional performative debate," a combination of both traditional and critical arguments. A discussion of the topic can be just as powerful as a topical discussion and it's safe to assume that I'm just as likely to vote on framework as I am to vote for an aff that doesn't have a plan text.

The following is a list of defaults, contrary arguments made in the debate will override these: --Tech >= truth. Evidence is important and good research/evidence can only help but it ultimately is just something that assists debaters' arguments. It's how debaters use evidence that matters. Similarly, evidence isn't always needed to make a good argument. Quasi-similarly, I don't consider an argument "dropped" if it's answered by a relevant meta framing issue somewhere else. --Zero risk is possible and what people refer to as "defense" is underutilized. --Unless the 2NR explicitly says something to the contrary, going for a counterplan in the 2NR means the only relevant comparison is the counterplan versus the plan. --The link determines the direction of uniqueness. --DAs should be intrinsic to the plan and they often times aren't. --Dropped arguments matter but only if you make them matter. Similarly, dropped arguments often aren't utilized well enough and there are often times ways out so if you dropped something the debate probably isn't over.

Also don't be a jerk.