Mehta,+Hershel

Yo DAWG. I’m HERSHEL MEHTA, debated at MONTGOMERY BELL ACADEMY from 2006 to 2010 and now debate for STANFORD (2010-). I’m fairly new to judging competitive debates, but I care a lot about the activity and will put a lot of effort into judging fairly/objectively etc.

go for whatever you want, I have no dispositions toward arguments and just want to see people debating well.

I always prefer a case-specific strategy – you sound better and smarter and cool neg strats are much more fun/better for debate.

Here are some of my thoughts on the activity and how I’ll judge you – PLEASE persuade me otherwise, I like ideological change. However, in the absence of a discussion in the debate, this is how I’ll think about your business.…

A dropped argument is a true argument – However, I believe in meta-arguments. For example – if you’re first argument on a K is framework and your thirteenth arg is “the res means the judge is the USFG” and the block answers 2AC 1 but doesn’t explicitly address 13, they haven’t “dropped” an arg and it definitely isn’t “game over.” Additionally – try not to say things like “game over,” I’ll steal something from Antonucci: the phrase is “meaningless unless you’re actually calling on me to stop the timer and yell “TKO!” Which I wouldn’t do.”

Clarity is Key - not just on tags, on the text of the cards as well. Most of constructives are spent reading evidence, it should probably be comprehensible. I'll try and flow warrants from the text of your cards, so don't just muddle it up because you want to get to your next argument.

Analytics are cool - be smart.

Realistic comparisons are key – whether they’re about evidence, strategy, or impacts – you have to do them to win. Also – I’ll amend that, you might win if you don’t make these comparisons, but you’ll force me to intervene which you don’t want.

T – Reasonability does not mean that if you are “reasonably topical” you win, it means that if your COUNTER-INTERPRETATION IS REASONABLE for debate, limits, etc – you win. I have no idea what it means to be “reasonably topical.” ALSO – limits arent an impact – and fairness probably isn’t either – the 2nr/2ar need to paint a picture of how debates happen, realistic affs that would be run, and why THESE debates are good/bad for this topic/debaters in general to win. T is a disad – the violation is the link and the standards are the impact. Do impact calc.

Ks/Framework – I’m probably not going to be convinced that Ks are bad for debate, because they probably aren’t, I am more likely to be convinced that you should be able to weigh your impacts against theirs, or something along those lines. Again, be reasonable – debate changes, realize that and deal with it. You need specific link analysis – lines of evidence from their 1ac combined with specific link cards is probably the best-case scenario for you. Be smart and use EMPIRICAL EXAMPLES – I am very persuaded by smart historical examples or modern analogies. Don’t rely on cheapshots (V2l, floating PIKs, truth=fake, etc), if you win them, baller, but make sure to combine them with substantive/technical strategy. If you expect to win on one card you read in the block – that’s fine, but MAKE THAT CLEAR IN THE BLOCK – flag it as an independent argument as early as possible.

DAs/CPs/Case – not much to say here, the more specific the better, but if you’re a politics and case kinda debater, that’s fine, there’s a reason for everything. Theory – Slow down a little bit. Blippiness won’t win you debates – in the 2ac it’s fine, as long as it’s clear, but depth in the rest of the debate is key. Combining hypothetical situations for abuse with what they actually did is best. Finally – combining theory arguments can get you far if you’re aff. Reject the arg, not the team is presumed until the side going for theory overcomes it - just labelling something a VI doesn't make it so.

Cheap shots – I’ll vote on them, but make sure that when you originally make them (be it the 2AC or the block) – you are clear about its implication for the ballot, IE – drop=loss, and why.

I won’t read any card that isn’t contested. Please be clear on citing authors for cards you do want me to read.

This is a first draft, i'll try and edit it as things come up. If you have other questions, just ask me. I'm excited to be your judge, hope you have fun. Be aggressive, but be careful to have some dignity. Also, I like jokes. Making them and hearing them, lightens the mood without damaging your cred.