Dheri,+Deep

Last update: August, 2013

**Background**: I debated LD for 3 years both locally and on the circuit at Montville Township High School in New Jersey and graduated in 2012. I got 3rd place my senior year at NCFL Nationals and 3rd place at NFL nationals. I now study at Georgetown University.


 * Short version**: 80% top circuit speed, theory, disads, plans/counter-plans are all fine. I'd prefer if you start slower and build up your speed. I flow and will vote off of any argument linked to the winning framework (or a sufficient explanation to vote for an argument outside of the framework debate). I'll average speaker points around 28. I prefer debates directly addressing the resolution, but that doesn't mean you have to run stock positions. Baiting theory makes me unhappy.

__**Long version**__:


 * Case reading/Speed**: Please look at me occasionally during all of your speeches. You can tell if I don't understand an argument through my facial expressions. I was never great at flowing speed, but 80% of top circuit speed shouldn't be a problem. I'll be able to handle more if you start off slowly and gradually build up speed. If I don't understand you, I'll yell clear twice before deducting speaks and discontinuing my flow.


 * Cross-ex**: This time should be used to make your opponent look like he/she doesn't know what they're talking about, without being rude. An ideal strategy would be ask a series of questions that ultimately traps your opponent. Clarification in CX should be minimal. CX is binding.


 * Framework**: I find debates easiest to judge with a value, value-criterion based frameworks but don't consider yourself limited to that. I'll buy any framework as long as it is justified. Consequentialist frameworks should include all consequentialist impacts (e.g. don't run a "minimizing war" framework that says "minimizing terrorism" is irrelevant because we should only be concerned with war, or vice-versa). If you're the type of debater whose framework is a minefield of spikes, make sure they're adequately warranted and longer than one sentence. If I don't have any of it flowed, I won't extend it in the next speech. Clearly define your standard, warrant it, and provide a bright-line if necessary.


 * Evidence**: I feel that evidence is an important aspect of debate and can take many forms. Most people choose to read select portions of cards, but you can also reference the evidence as long as you don't distort it and have the full-text on you. For that matter, you should have the full-text (the entire article) of any evidence you read. I will call for evidence after the round and do require debaters to show opponents evidence if/when asked.


 * Extensions**: Please sign-post while extending arguments. Extend the claim, warrant, and impact of the argument. I'm not a stickler for the word "extend." I give aff some leeway on extensions. You don't have to spend as much time extending on dropped arguments. After extending, please give me an implication as to why that argument is important in that round other than the impact (i.e. if it precludes some of your opponents arguments, or wins both frameworks by itself, etc...). I don't buy new extensions or new applications of extensions after your first opportunity to extend. My bright line is "did the opponent have a chance to adequately respond" when evaluating an argument.


 * Competing Worlds vs. Truth Testing**: A good debater should recognize when a debate devolves into a structural difference between competing worlds (how the resolution is implemented in the aff/neg worlds) and truth testing (whether the resolution is a true/false statement). For example, the Stand Your Ground law might be good under a truth testing framework but bad under a comparative worlds. That might not be the best example but I've seen many debates that devolve into this fundamental issue. Absent any argument persuading me either way, I default to truth testing but can easily be compelled by arguments in favor of competing worlds.


 * Theory**: As stated above, I prefer debates about the resolution but theory is necessary in some situations. For both of these reasons, I will give high speaker points to someone who runs a quick theory shell without a voter to nullify an abusive argument, and then continue with the rest of the debate. If you'd prefer not to do this, theory in an interpretation, violation, standards, voter format is fine. It can also be run in paragraph form if all of the elements are there. I don't like frivolous theory so I'm more compelled by RVIs than not (this doesn't mean you should bait theory, however). Interpretations should be specific. I default to competing interpretations but I'll buy reasonability if you justify it. Either fairness or education (or both) can work as a voter. I encourage debaters to discuss framework issues before the round to avoid an unnecessary theory debate. Please explain why the violation of the voter adequately justifies a loss (i.e. it might be "unfair" if your opponent can read faster than you can or if your opponent runs 14 NIBs), but do both warrant a loss because they violate fairness?


 * Plans/Counter-plans**: You can run these on aff/neg respectively if it's justified by some framework arguments. I don't find PICs abusive unless they force the aff to defend a position that wouldn't have been resolutional. I'm not a fan of word PICs. Any plan or counter-plan should have at least an actor, a clear, specific text, and advantages or disadvantages.


 * Kritiks**: These are fine, but I am not too familiar with dense, philosophical literature so you would have read slower on these than usual. I don't like general kritiks that could be used on any resolution; please do some topic-specific research. The link can either be pre-fiat or post-fiat, but must link directly to the AC. K's must have an alternative outside of "reject the aff/neg advocacy."


 * Crystallization**: At the end of your last speech, you should write the ballot for me. Reiterate why your offense better achieves the framework and why it outweighs your opponent's offense or why your opponent's offense is irrelevant. The crystallization should ideally be a 'story' of the round, telling me what arguments were made but why yours are superior. If you're neg, I'm impressed by debaters who will predict aff voters and preclude them with hoops to jump through. I won't buy new weighing in the last speech.


 * Speaker points**: I think that public speaking should have some value in debate. Speaker points, for me, are a combination of a debater's strategic decisions, overall persuasiveness, and public speaking elements. Wins are determined objectively but speaker points can be adjusted based on this paradigm. I'll average around a 28 at every tournament.


 * Important note**: I think debates are just better for everyone if you're honest with your evidence discuss feasible implications of the resolution.

-I don't buy presumption arguments, any form of skepticism that states no action can be morally condemnable, or 'triggers' not explicitly stated in the first speech. -I like debaters who can make me laugh without being arrogant. -Feel free to ask any questions before or after the round. My email is dd393@georgetown.edu
 * Other notes:**