Ghosh,+Monica

I debated for Westlake High School for four years and graduated in ’08. I currently attend the University of Texas at Austin. I have taught at the Texas Debate colletive for the past two years and judge on all circuits fairly frequently.

General: I default to seeing the resolution as a truth statement. This means the affirmative’s burden is to prove the resolution true, and the negative’s burden is to prove it not true or false. This also means that I think the nature of these burdens comes directly from the text of the resolution. That said, I will have no problem evaluating the round otherwise if told to. This does, however, require that you explain to me very clearly how I should evaluate offense, although you should really be doing this anyway.

So this is how I write my ballot:

I first evaluate any theoretical arguments that were made (unless a discourse argument or something was also made). These should be extremely well justified as I don’t particularly like these sorts of arguments. This means if there is no sufficient explanation for why I should vote on theory, I will at worst disregard it and at absolute best I will merely use it to exclude.

Second, I look to see if there is any offense that comes before the standard/burden/criterion/articulated weighing mechanism. In order for me to vote here, there has to be a fleshed out justification for why these sorts of arguments come before the standard. Otherwise, voting for it would necessitate my completing the argument for you which is blatantly intervening. And just generally, prestandard arguments that aren't prestandard at all are really annoying. If there are multiple prestandard arguments, please prioritize them. I think pointing out a lack of prioritization is a sufficient (and short) response to multiple prestandards- so take care to not skip over this step.

Finally, I look to whichever standard is winning and offense explicitly linking back to that standard. This should be relatively simple, but increasingly debaters are cutting corners in their rebuttals. In order to decisively win a piece of offense, you //must// fully articulate a warrant and an impact without any ink left next to it. It might also help to say "extend." You must weigh your arguments for me- if I weigh for you, you might not like the results. Further, even if an argument is dropped, you still have to re-explain the warrant in your next speech.

I recognize that there will be situations where there will be no way to evaluate the round based off of the requirements I set for complete arguments. In these circumstances, I will be forced to evaluate arguments based off of the strength of extensions. This means, in the event of my intervention, I will prioritize arguments that were better explained, impacted, and weighed.

This should also tell you that I am partial toward arguments that criticize insufficiently explained arguments. Pointing out skips in logic, lack of impacts, lack of extensions, generally blippy arguments, etc. are all ways to help win my ballot and up your speaks. Note: saying "1. No warrant 2. no impact 3. no link" is not at all what I mean- you must explain precisely what they should have done but didn't and why that matters. In fact, if you make arguments that are simply "this arg has no warrant" it will make me very, very sad.

There’s no argument I won’t vote off of. Regarding “weird”/complex/pomo/trendy/new positions- I think I’m fairly good at comprehending arguments, but I admit it's likely that I'm not as well read as you are in some authors. That said, if I don’t understand an argument, I won’t vote off of it. I think the sufficiency of a warrant largely comes from the manner it is articulated. In the hundreds of rounds I've judged, this has only happened once so you shouldn't be crippled with worry over it. But, to be safe (although you should do this regardless), you should put extra effort into clearly explaining your position.

Run whatever you want, however you want. Just make complete arguments and tell me how to vote clearly.

Speed: I rarely have a problem with flowing speed, though I suggest slowing down for card names, tags, and justification numbers. If you are unclear, I will yell clear once. If you are still unclear, your speaks will suffer and you run the risk of my not catching arguments. That said, I will only yell "clear" if it is really impossible to understand anything you're saying. This means that just because I'm not yelling clear does not mean you are clear. Be clear. You're responsible for watching my flowing patterns. Few things make me sadder than being unable to flow an otherwise great speech because it's garbled.

Speaks: I probably average around a 27. If I dip below a 25 that means you’ve done something quite wrong or offensive. A 30 means I’ve learned something from the round and that you were beautifully strategic.

Random: I like really damning cross-examinations. Flex prep is fine but terribly boring. 7 minute cases or Ks or 25 off-case arguments in the NC are great and all that jazz, but I think the art of actually responding thoroughly to the 1AC is slowly dying and would be really impressed to see someone do this well. New arguments are extremely annoying and I will catch them. I like interesting tricks and strategy. If you don’t clearly signpost I will hold it against you if I do not flow your arguments. Very rarely do I see someone adequately crystallize- if you can do this, I will be remarkably impressed (and happy). I like funny debaters, aggressive debaters, nice debaters; I don't like rude debaters- especially if you are debating a novice.

Feel free to ask me questions before/after the round. I am generally a rather quiet person- don’t take this as disdain! I would be happy to talk to you.