Mishra,+Chetan

Mishra, Chetan

I debated at Broad Run High School for four years (2008-2012). Some things to know about me— 1. Comparative impact analysis is incredibly important to me. I don’t want to think as a judge. I will get away with as little as possible if I can. Hence give me reasons why your impacts are worst than the other team’s (this is true whether it’s a k, theory, t, disad). Do the work for me and I will default to it if it goes uncontested (incredibly low threshold if dropped). If you both give me one but there’s no clash then I’ll go for the one that had the better warrants. If no one does the work for me I’ll try comparing the impacts (using how you described them/the scenarios) and make the call myself, but remember: I DON’T want to do this. Don’t make me. 2. I don’t really call for cards unless an argument is made using how amazing x card is in the context of impact calc (or really any argument, but I used it in that context the most in HS) 3. I hardcore believe in the offense/defense paradigm. It's probably possible to win my ballot on terminal defense, but it's so incredibly difficult to do so. 4. A dropped argument is a true argument, but you still need to extend an argument properly. Remember all the parts of an arg (status quo, link, impact for adv’s/DA, link/impact/alt for K’s, the plan text for a CP). You also should explain to me the implications of dropping this argument (remember, I don’t want to have to think to vote). 5. People refer to me as more of a policy debater, but do not let that deter you from running kritiks. I will vote on any argument as long as it's explained and impacted properly. I ‘ran’ kritiks my second year in high school until I realized how they were actually run/the work I would have to put in to actually run one (so I was lazy and stopped the second half of 11th and esp 12th). I know the literature to purely economically-based kritiks of capitalism/neoliberalism and orientalism but be prepared to explain the k very well (I won’t be familiar with the literature), especially the alternative. An overview where this is done and the links are explicitly laid out + impact calc comparatively against the aff is done would be amazing (I always did this) before going to the line by line (be sure you cover everything though). 6. Against kritikal affs that don’t defend a policy action, I’m very receptive to the ground argument argument/”Topical version of the aff” argument (esp the latter, takes out much offense) since if an aff just reads a soliloquy on someone in terrible circumstances I don’t see what the negative can really do other than out-k them (there are other, arguments that may apply in specific instances in which case ground wouldn’t have as much leeway) which would be great but I think is a very restrictive form to box someone into. 7. That being said, I will default on the flow. If you reply to their points and they don’t address them, or at least you win certain concessions and explain to me why that means you win the argument overall (and the other team doesn’t refute this or you win it if there’s clash here), then expect to win. I will judge by the flow. Just know if it turns into a shouting match or if there isn’t clash, that’s how I’d default. 8. 8. I look at theory like a disad-- the standards are the impacts. You should do impact calculus with the standards. However, most of the time, I think that theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team (although this obviously doesn't apply to condo), but can be persuaded otherwise. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">9. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">If cheapshots are conceded I’ll vote in them. I’ll vote on them if you win it too, it’s just really hard to get me to vote for aspec when I think a ton of defense takes out most of your potential abuse claims (like cx checks). <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">10. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">This doesn’t apply if there’s in-round abuse. I’ll pull the trigger pretty easily if you can prove in-round abuse. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">Ultimately, remember that you are the debaters and that I will listen to any argument. Do sufficient impact calculus and you'll probably win my ballot.