Das-Grande,+Karan

Karan Das-Grande The Harker School ‘13 Connecticut College ‘17 Speed is fine, but I've been out of the game a while so probably can't keep up with the fastest kids out there. All arguments need to be linked to some kind of framework, or I’ll default to util. I’m more comfortable on the util debate than other debates, so explain your philosophy to me. Theory is fine, but I’ll tank your speaks if it’s really unnecessary.
 * Conflicts: Harker**
 * Short Version**

I debated for four years at Harker, the last three on the national circuit. I wasn’t the greatest debater ever, but I was an outrounds level debater my senior year. I've been mostly out of debate recently, basically judging <10 rounds per year.
 * Long Version**
 * Background In Debate**

I wasn’t the greatest flower as a debater, so I’ll probably be a bit worse at it judging than I was as a debater. That being said, I should be fine with most speed, and I’ll yell clear or slow if needed. I suffered from a speech impediment and clarity issues as a debater, so please let me know if you also do because I’ll make sure to do my best and be extra patient with you if so. That DOES NOT mean I’ll gift you extra speaks, I just appreciate the heads up so I can put extra effort into processing what you’re saying.
 * Speed / Clarity**

I ran util as a debater, and I default to competing worlds. You can run whatever other frameworks you want, and I’ll adjudicate the round based on that framework. That being said I’m not very well versed in those frameworks so you’ll need to explain them to me like you’re teaching a novice. Slow down for your deep philosophy, and explain to me the warrants in the framework, don’t just assert that X is true or that Y leads to an infinite regress. I like to see what they constitute, and what arguments link back to that.
 * Framework**

I’m a believer in plans. That doesn’t mean I’ll automatically vote for your plan or counterplan, I just like that kind of argumentation. However, I expect them to be run properly. Plans must have Inherency and a Solvency Advocate. Counterplans should have solvency advocates, or if they don’t theory is legitimate.
 * Plans/CP’s**

I’m pretty lax about extensions, especially if the argument is dropped. I’d rather see more time spent on comparing arguments then on actually the technical extension of arguments. If there’s ink against it though, if you want your argument to hold as true, you’ll have to respond to it.
 * Extensions**

I evaluate theory as reasonability. Basically I’ll see it as competing interps in that you should read offense and defense but I reserve the right to reject a theory argument if it’s blatantly ridiculous. Ridiculous interps I've heard/seen include Aff must run skep, Neg can't straight ref, Aff can't kick the AC, Aff must run a plan. Basically links of omission, and dumb arguments (you know when an argument's dumb). I won’t vote you down, I’ll just ignore it. I’m not a big fan of theory, so I’m very receptive to reject the argument as a response. I've got a pretty high threshold for RVI's since I prefer the debate to be about substance. I am very receptive to potential absue is not a voter, since I feel much more comfortable voting off of in-round abuse.
 * Theory/Topicality**

I ran some K’s, but am not extremely familiar with all the literature. So like other frameworks, explain to me the framework. Slow it down, and actually explain the warrants instead of simply reading your Butler or your Foucault card.
 * K’s**

I see the aff as a shift from the squo, so if there’s no reason to affirm, I’ll negate. I can be persuaded though.
 * Presumption**

I’m fine on voting on them if you warrant every part of the ballot story. I find the trickiest part and quite often the worst justified part is the role of the ballot, so make sure to win that.
 * Micropolitical Positions**

I’ll try to set my baseline at 28.5 for a debater that I believe should be in outrounds. 30’s will be very rare, and 26 will be my bottom asides for the practices I’ll outline below. - Weigh - Provide a clear ballot story - Creative argument interaction - Lie in Cross-X - Being shady in Cross-X - Blipspreads - Advocacy Shifts - No Signposting - "Triggering" Presumption - "Triggering" Skepticism (Skep is ok, just not 30 skep triggers) - Reading a ton of frivolous theory - Disrespecting your opponent (includes merciless beatdowns on novices. Win my ballot, that’s enough. Don’t be an asshole and make them feel bad about themselves) - Reading Offensive Arguments (Benatar, Rape good, Racism good, Wipeout and potentially others. That’s all I can think of. I think spark and Malthus can be read in non-offensive ways)
 * Speaker Points**
 * How to get good speaker points**
 * How to get bad speaker points**
 * How to instantly lose my ballot**

While my paradigm may come across as extremely opinionated, I just believe that debate is an educational activity, and ultimately as a judge it is my responsibility to uphold norms that I view as beneficial for debate. Most of these things will never actually be an issue in a debate round, so basically run what you want, just make sure you explain it. If you have issues with my paradigm, I’m more than happy to discuss it via email (karan.dasgrande AT gmail DOT com) or in person. If you need clarification, feel free to ask me about my paradigm before the round, it’s better to find out about it before the round than after. If you think my views will be a problem, strike me so I don’t have to tank people’s speaks or drop them since I don’t like doing that because I’m a nice guy .