Ramanan,+Advait

Advait Ramanan Atholton ‘15 Georgia ‘19

Quick pre-round - I’ve debated almost every genre of argument both ways (other than for high theory stuff.) During my time in high school debate I was very right leaning, but I’m very open to voting for the K/a kritikal aff. - The affirmative should defend something. - An argument is a claim and a warrant. - Utilize CX as much as you can. - There is a difference between an aggressive CX and an obnoxious CX. - I will call for evidence that addresses the nexus questions in the debate. - Analytics. Use them. Smart analytics > GBN evidence every day of the week. - Cheap shots. I’ll vote on them but I’m not a fan. - I don’t take prep for flashing or any other random issues with paperless stuff. Don’t abuse that because after a certain point I might. Learning to do paperless is one of the more invaluable skills one can learn. - TKOs are in play -- if you think the other team has made a mistake that cannot be recovered from (e.g. dropped t or condo) you can stake the debate on there being no feasible way I vote for the other team. If you're right you win, if not you lose. - Don't clip cards. If you are caught clipping cards and there is evidence of said act you will lose.

“The real thing” Background - Debated for Capitol Debate for 4 years. - People who have influenced my debating/thoughts on debate: Daryl Burch, Michael Koo, Isabel Slavinsky, Ellis Allen, Eric Forslund, David Heidt, Mimi Sergent-Leventhal, and Jarrod Atchinson.

Framework - Putting this near the top because this is how most of y’all do prefs anyways. - During my years in high school I flip flopped many a time on this particular argument. That being said during my senior year I went for framework every debate against no plan affs except the one time a judge explicitly said they would not vote for it. - I evaluate this argument, just like every argument, entirely on tech. Win the flow, win the debate. - Fairness in and of itself is not an impact. That being said it is also the best internal link to impacts. Explain how lack of predictability effects the skills that debate teaches you and impact out why clash is good. - These debates are won by defense more often than the impact level of the debate. - Exclusion arguments need to be explained and warranted rather than asserted. - I think affs should be allowed discourse contentions only because the negative gets Ks of discourse. Obviously if you win an extra T argument about discourse I will vote for you.

Engaging no plan affs - I have very little experience here buuuut - The two important questions to me are who controls root cause and does the aff get a perm - If the aff gets a perm they usually win, if not it’s a question of who controls the root cause.

Being Aff - The 2AC and 1AR on the case are about making sure you have ink next to the negatives argument and less about the depth of argumentation/explanation. - Please don’t overuse the phrase “try or die.” If the neg has a sweet internal link take out but no impact defense it is not try or die aff. - Good case debates are my favorite things and will result in good points. This doesn’t mean the neg needs to have a ton of cards, but logical reasons the aff advantage is stupid. Goes the other way for the aff – reading good evidence is great.

T - Default reasonability but honestly that part of the debate is a wash most of the time anyways. - Not a fan of the trend towards super generic impact calc about how an infinite amount of affs is bad. Explain why your vision for the topic is better than theirs with examples like case lists both ways and topical versions of the aff.

DAs - I like them! - The thesis of link or uniqueness controls the direction legitimately makes 0 sense to me. That being said you should make the argument because it’s oft conceded in the 1AR so whatever. - The politics DA was featured in a majority of my 2NRs my senior year. This was a product of how terrible the oceans topic was rather than the love that some people have for this particular argument. I don’t hate politics so by all means go for it. - Short and silly DAs are fun and often not called out for their flaws. Remember you don’t always need cards to answer a bad but new DA. Impact defense + smart analytics usually slay these. - Most judges love turns case arguments. I think they are incredibly strategic but a conceded turns case claim does not automatically mean the advantage goes away (you still have to win the top half of the DA!) - I love well executed impact turn debates.

CPs - Multiplank advantage CPs were and still are my favorite arguments. Aff teams need to defend their internal links. I understand how unpredictable they are and thus have a lower threshold for having evidence for both solvency deficits and links to politics. Obviously you won’t have a links to politics card for every advantage CP out there, but if you make a logical analytic I will be unpersuaded by the neg being like “you got no ev!” - Counterplans that have the possibility of resulting in the aff are not persuasive to me. I won’t punish the aff for dropping subpoint H on the perm do the CP debate. - I can go either way on every other theory question – condo, 50 state fiat, ifiat, ect. - The only theory argument that is a reason to reject the team is conditionality unless there is an explicitly conceded reason to reject the team on another theory argument.

K - I conceptualize these as n/u DAs with a sillyish uniqueness CP. - Link arguments win debates -- they're offense and defense. You can't just drop the case. - Alternative explaination and ethos in CXs on the alternative can win debates. - Never super deep in the lit but a good explanation of your K with fleshed out impact calc and good link analysis will win debates in front of me. - External impacts win debates. It’s very hard to go all in on turns case and extinction inevitable - High theory arguments are a harder sell in front of me. - The best K debates are the ones that talk about the aff the most. - Think of perms as link defense and you will have more success in winning on the perm.

Speaks - This is probably the other thing you care a lot about. - It comes down to how you do on the flow and how you do it in the debate. - The flow part of the debate is how good you are at making strategic arguments, warranting them, execution, and overall strategic vision. - How you do it in debate might be more important. How you carry yourself in the debate, during CX, during prep, pre-round interactions, during dead time in the debate. This extends to clarity, organization, and how much you make me like you in the debate. - Don’t be offensive - I know how much speaks mean to you so just keep in mind my senior year was during the point where point inflation plateau'd (…I think…?). Just ask me what you got post round and I most likely will tell you what you got. - Random things you can do to up your speaks: 1. Being funny/making me laugh. 2. Making fun of Michael Koo, Simon Park, Isabel Slavinsky, Gabe Koo, Ryan Eckhaus, Edgemont KX, Meg Young, St. Marks AP, or anyone else you think I’m friends with. 3. Delivering on risky moves (delivering meaning it should work.) 4. Sports (if they are about my teams you will get better points), House of Cards, or Pokemon references.