Sathian,+Sanjena+Anshu

I debated for 4 years in high school at Westminster, do not debate in college, but worked as a lab leader at Michigan this summer and will be judging whenever I can. I was a 2N. I didn’t go for the K that much.

Be nice, have fun, be clear, don’t clip cards, be firm but not mean. If you perform or don’t capitalize your name for some reason that I have yet to comprehend, I don’t recommend you pref me. If you’re in a hurry, that’s all you need to know.


 * __Preliminary Note__**

I love debate, I loved it in high school, and I am going to stay involved in the activity because I think debate at the high school level is a fantastic way to spend your time. If you hate debate...why are you here? I think that debate is a game that is valuable largely because it can be an academically challenging and intellectually rigorous game. It should be fun, yes, but being a nerd, I think that fun is best found through debates that encourage research and a rigorous analysis of the topic, the aff you’re debating, and your responses. That being said, I think my preference for debaters who take the time to do work will show through in a few distinct ways.

1. Case specific strategies are awesome. I was a 2N and most of my success came from researching the other team’s aff. It’s fun, it means you win a lot, and it means you’ll get good speaks.

2. Counterplans, procedurals, and kritiks that attempt to keep you from answering the other team’s aff are strategic, justified against new affs (maybe), but are, in my mind, a cheap-shot way of getting around the reason debate is awesome. While I do not think I will let my personal biases against these arguments play in, it may mean that a 2AR does not have as difficult a job convincing me that I should err aff on something like reasonability or default to preserving aff ground over consult CPs. At the same time, I don’t think that out of round research is the only way people can learn in debate. A K debater who contextualizes the debate in terms of the aff or gives historical examples or particular reasons to prefer X methodology provides an education that I think is just as valuable. In T or theory debates this means reading evidence about the topic or making arguments that show you have done work relating to the topic. In short…talk about the resolution?

3. Performance or not defending a plan on the aff, to me, does not have a place in debate. To quote Jarrod Atchison, debate is a “laboratory for colliding ideas.” This is why it’s awesome. But in order for said laboratory to function properly, there does need to be a point of stasis, or agreement, that the debaters can come to. Affs that don’t defend the resolution should probably find a better forum for their movement.

4. While I value research, you should give me a good reason to value YOUR research. Evidentiary comparisons ranging over everything from warrant comparisons to qualifications are necessary if you think there is a particular piece of evidence that could win you the round. It baffles me that cap K teams get away with reading impacts from Socialism.com or revolutionizheree2k9’s myspace page…but if you don’t give a reason why your evidence from Krugman is more qualified (and why qualifications matter), I’m forced to evaluate them on an equal playing field. This to me is an integral part of educational research—understanding where sources come from and being able to analyze the bias and perspective of each source.

__Speaker points__ ...are inherently arbitrary, but here's how I see it. Speaker points are about teaching, and I'll reward you for skills that I think matter. To me, that is not necessarily "sounding pretty" but rather: - controlling the debate aggressively while simultaneously being polite/pleasant - fantastic CXes can earn you 29.5s even if the rest of your speeches are just solid - if you are debating a team substantially worse than you, I will penalize you for over-kill-ing or being rude or condescending. likewise, I will reward you for being nice


 * __Ethics questions__**

Things that will earn you an auto-loss and/or 11 speaker points: clipping cards. Proof that you have cut cards out of context intentionally. Evidentiary fabrication. Reading the other team’s evidence in your speech. Things that I don’t support but won’t intervene for: emailing authors.


 * __Arguments and all__**

Topicality: I appreciate a good T debate. Here’s how I’d define it: you don’t necessarily need phenomenal evidence for your violation, but I think unless you have evidence contextual to the topic and maybe some examples/solvency advocates for potentially bad affs under your interp, you are fighting an uphill battle. I don’t necessarily default to “competing interps” or “reasonability,” but I don’t think that the aff has to win a reason why their counter interpretation is BETTER—if they win that the neg’s interp is bad or fails, it’s as good as winning a risk of defense against a politics DA.

Counterplans: I’ve already mentioned my views on why certain types of counterplans are bad. My default is that counterplans compete off the mandate of the plan and cross-x establishes functional competition. If you can convince me otherwise, go ahead.

Ks: They’re interesting, fun debates to be in and judge. I don’t think you should spend much time on framework unless you’re reading a reps K or have specific methodology __impact__ args. K alts usually are stupid, don’t create uniqueness, and don’t solve. I don't really understand Badiou. You were warned.

Theory: winnable like any other argument, but it should be impacted in every speech well enough for me to vote on it. I will protect the other team if your 2NR/2AR extension is largely new or has too much new impact calc.

Top 5 dumb arguments that I will be very very sad if I have to vote for...but obviously winning the flow is more important. 1. Wipeout/ASHTAR/Time cube tied 2. Gregorian Calendar K 3. OSPEC 4. Technicism/K of a CP 5. Anything involving Caldwell

I think concepts of “offense-defense” in debate are oversimplistic and silly.

Final note: the 2AR is not a constructive. I will actively scratch out arguments from my flow that I think were new, not well grounded in the 1AR, or were not predictable for the 2NR to deal with. You can expand on things like impact calc in the 2AR, but do not expect me to vote aff on conditionality bad if the 1AR spent ten seconds on it. Similarly, I expect a high degree of explanation of arguments in the 1AR—obviously not to the extent that the 2AR will explain, but if I look at the flow assuming I am giving the 2NR and cannot predict what the 2AR on that argumetn will be, I will not evaluate it.