Maruri,+Vinay

Westlake High School Austin, TX ‘16 UC Berkeley ‘20 (Economics and Computer Science)


 * UPDATE FOR BERKELEY 2018: I have completely re-written my paradigm because 99% of what I had earlier no longer applies.**
 * Yes I want to be on the email chain: vmaruri1@berkeley.edu**

Current Conflicts: Garland HS (TX) Past Conflicts: Westlake HS (TX), Houston Memorial HS (TX)

My views on debate have evolved significantly since I left high school, got into coaching policy and LD, and put into the UC Berkeley student meat grinder.

I will vote on anything that is non-offensive (i.e. warming good yes i'll vote on it, racism good nope and you'll get the lowest possible speaks). I care about evidence quality because I've seen lots of poorly warranted cards being read in debate for many years and it degrades the education from the activity. If you can prove your evidence is superior to your opponent's you'll gain a large advantage in round.

That being said I have a few preferences (from most preferred to least preferred): 1) LARP: I enjoy LARP and it is a large part of what my debaters read. Big stick advantages, DA's, even the most technical counterplan/plan debates are right up my alley.

2) K: I also enjoy K's as well. This was a large part of what I read in HS. I am familiar with a wide variety of arguments, and consider myself well versed in everything from high theory to identity politics literature. My students this year and last year have read everything from tuck and yang to lacan to anti-blackness to anthro and more. In HS I even read Heidigger on top of that. I am also very well versed in anti-capitalist literature as an economics major. Do with this information what you will.

3) 1NC T/Theory: These can be fun debates if done well. The big issue I have in these debates is that there's normally a lack of weighing between offense on both sides leaving me to pick through a mess of arguments and make an arbitrary decision as to whose ahead. Do clear and plentiful weighing and you will be fine. I default to competing interps and drop the debater but RVIs is an open debate.

4) Skep: I will vote on this. It sort of makes sense to me after 2 years at UC Berkeley. (insert suffering meme)

5) Philosophy heavy positions: To be honest I never really got into these kinds of positions and neither have my debaters. I treat philosophy as something fun to read and listen to lectures about, but hard to understand. The densest author in this area I understood was Kant. Do with this information what you will.

6) 1AR Theory/2NR Meta-Theory/side bias shenanigans: I don't know why this became a big thing again but I'm not a large fan of it for 3 reasons. First, I think the 1AR debater who initiates is at a structural advantage since they get more speeches and can clash/line-by-line neg responses. Second, 2NR metatheory to me seems to be speaking into a vacuum since there's never a chance to develop the argument since you only read the shell and that's it. Third, I was shocked when I heard people spending multiple seconds, let alone minutes pre-emptively debating side bias to gain an edge since in the grand scheme of things neither side in my mind has an inherent advantage going into round. To be honest, the only 1AR theory I will vote on is condo bad or pics bad or counterplan theory shells and i'm very unlikely to vote on 2NR metatheory or these side bias shenanigans.

7) Tricky Truth-Testing args (Rodl ought NC, util = permissibility, etc.): Not my favorite because I don't think they are designed to engage the aff or the topic. I also tend to think that they are bastardizations of the literature they come from if they are carded.

K affs: They are cool and I like them. FW vs K affs is an open debate as I'm not pre-disposed to either side.

Speaks: I realized I was too stingy last year so I will adjust to community norms. I'll start at 28.7 and go up/down from there. If you do something problematic in round/are generally unfriendly/disrespectful or exhibit other poor behaviors I will dock speaks. Debate as a community is special and it's fueled by its members and the relations/vibes they create. Keep it that way.

Miscellaneous: If you can work in a quality political joke I'll add 0.1 speaks. If you say "game over" or "round over" at any point I'll deduct 0.1 speaks because the debate is not over until the 2AR ends. If you say "critical concession" or the like more than once I'll dock 0.1 speaks. Not everything can be a critical concession. If you can work in a math, economics, statistics, or computer science reference during the debate (i.e. questioning a study's datasets or asking about a study's regressions/models, etc.) I'll add 0.1 speaks. If you generally have fun and have a good attitude in round, I'll also add 0.1 speaks because those were my favorite kind of rounds in HS and not taking everything so seriously is generally a good way of life (as I've learned the hard way).