Patel,+Nirav

Nirav Patel Affiliation: Richmond Numbers of Rounds on Topic: 0 Years of participation in activity: 10

More or less, I have not judged a debate since March of 2005. I am unaware of new trends in the activity and have – after three years of reflection – developed a more clear view of my position as a critic, supporter, and observer of debate.

The only predisposition I have is for good debates. I used to read a lot of cards at the end of rounds but I think that's unfair to the debaters. I will now place more value on logical arguments explained by debaters and, if needed, reconcile those claims with warranted and quality evidence that is extended by debaters. Yes, I know that quality is a nebulous term but I prefer evidence that is written by experts and top-tier newspapers.

Because I have not judged in a few years my flowing skills are presumably a bit rusty. However, I will do my best to keep up with you but if you are unclear and I warn you a couple times I will most likely tune you out.

I have been absorbed in many of the topic related discussions at different levels over the past two years and am excited about hearing how debaters perceive particular events in the Middle East. I will attempt – as much as a human can – to remain objective and to exclude my personal biases about particular issues.

Performance: I am not against this genre of argumentation but believe that it should be grounded in a fair and predictable interpretation of the topic. From what I gather things are getting pretty radical in debates. I would prefer a more analytically rigorous criticism of the case grounded in a particular methodology than puppets ranting about how much debate sucks.

I am a firm believer that debate provides invaluable skills for the "real world." Policymaking good arguments are convincing but not necessarily mutually exclusive with claims arguing for a need to re-conceptualize how we approach decision making. In fact, I would contend that those debates happen often in DC and capitals around the world.

Impact calculus is critical. I know that many debaters have a set 2nc overview that contends that nuclear outweighs all but that is insufficient. As a debater you have to make impact arguments that are within the context of the 1ac. For example, loss of US negotiating credibility in the Middle East would jeopardize America's ability to jumpstart the Two-State peace process which flips your advantage's internal link claim….ADD SUBSTANCE HERE.

I am also in the camp that there is such thing as "ZERO RISK." You can win a hundred percent "no link" against a DA and even if the negative wins their impact I wouldn't vote for the DA. This requires you to rigorously debate the merits of the link/uniqueness/impact.

It will be refreshing to hear debates again and if you any questions please feel free to ask. Nirav