Reddy,+Narain

Narain Reddy Bellaire High School ’15, Boston University ‘18

Meta-Issues

Tech > Truth in most cases I have not judged many rounds on this topic – don’t assume I know as much about the arguments as you do, take time to explain your position. Evidence comparison, through warrants, qualifications, or recency, is essential for resolving key issues in the debate and for preventing judge intervention if I need to call for evidence. Quality of Evidence > Quantity of Evidence (Even on politics) Speaker Point Tips: Bonus points for impact turning, relevant jokes/humor, case-specific strategies. Clarity is more important than speed.

Argument Preferences

Topicality – It’s fine, use comparative impact analysis to explain why your standards are more important that the other teams’ (for example, why limits outweigh affirmative ground or vice-versa.) I default to competing interpretations but I believe that reasonability is a highly underused affirmative argument, especially against particularly contrived negative interpretations.

Theory – I default to reject the argument not the team but this is completely debatable. I tend to lean affirmative on most theory issues, especially with cheating counterplans (consult, conditions, etc) but that is not to say I am a poor judge for you if this is your strategy. The more you demonstrate in-round strategy skew/”abuse” or lack thereof, the better. I default to conditionality unless the affirmative team contests this in round. I will not “judge kick” unless instructed to by the 2NR and the 2AR does not object.

Disadvantages – Great. I tend to believe that the link matters more than the impact in most debates. Internal link defense is much more strategic than impact defense. The Politics disadvantage is usually terrible but I still enjoy judging politics debates. Zero risk is possible for both advantages and disadvantages; Affirmatives that lose all of the disadvantage debate can still win with strategic impact calculus (and vice-versa.)

Counterplans – Great. The more specific, the better. Competition often determines how legitimate the counterplan is – the more clear that the CP is a relevant opportunity cost to the affirmative, the less likely I am to be persuaded by theory arguments.

Kritiks – Not great. I am not a very good judge for the kritik; I tend to vote affirmative. If your kritik contests the desirability of enacting the plan and is case-specific and policy relevant, that is preferable to generics, but I’d say I’m still a 5-6/10 for this style of argument.

Performance/Kritikal Affirmative – I am the wrong judge for you. I am highly persuaded by topicality, especially if your affirmative is not clearly related to the topic in some way. I will be highly skeptical of the permutation, especially since the 1AC’s advocacy seems to always change throughout the round in these debates. I don’t really understand why activism necessitates ignoring the topic; I think the “in the direction of the topic” distinction is meaningless – just because the neg can impact-turn your project doesn’t prove your model of debate is fair, predictable, or educational.