Vepa,+Teja+-+Policy

Updated for Stanford 2014 (2/5/2014)

Policy Debate Judge Paradigm for Teja Vepa

This is my Policy paradigm, If you are looking for my thoughts on LD debate, you are in the wrong place. Please use this link: http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja+-+LD

__**Background**__ Current Affiliations: Claremont High School, CA

Past Affiliations: St. Margaret's Episcopal School, CA

I debated for most of my 4 years at Claremont High School in Southern California. I currently coach 3-5 teams in Policy Debate each year so I am familiar with the topic and the literature base.

I have a B.S. in Biophysics from USC so I like science/math intensive discussions.

This is my 11th year of involvement in competitive debate.


 * __Quick Tips/ TL;DR__**


 * Yes, I know I wrote a LOT. If you want to take some extra time before the round to read, then I'll understand - more information is often better than less
 * Prep time ends when you remove your flash drive from your computer
 * These are my default settings, I will always do my best to not intervene in your debate
 * Tech over Truth - Really good technical debating is always preferred
 * I love the strategic use of T/Theory/Procedurals to guarantee ground on other flows
 * If you want me to vote on Theory, you better have an interpretation
 * Speed is Fine
 * If you run a K, take your time and explain your thesis and link
 * Vague Alts justify Vague Perms
 * Conditionality is probably a good thing

__**IN GENERAL**__ Please make complete arguments. An argument has a Claim, Warrant and Impact. Don't make a claim, and then expect me to calculate it as if it were an argument. Aside from that, **everything that follows are a description of my default settings** and suggestions to you. Feel free to disregard them at will because you are debating your opponent and not me. I will always do my best to evaluate arguments as they occurred in the round.

__**I will now answer some FAQs:**__

//Speed?// Go ahead. I will say clear if you are being unclear. I haven't seen a debater too fast to flow in several years.

//How many Rounds have you judged on this topic?// ~50

//How many rounds have you ever judged?// I don't know if I can assign a specific number to this, but I feel confident in saying that I have seen more rounds than you have debated in.

These are the only FAQs i've been frequently asked on this topic. Please feel free to ask me anything before the round.

__**Topicality**__ I do enjoy T. It is a voting issue, but often I see teams go for the wrong T argument against borderline-topical affs. I do also enjoy the strategic aspect of T as a way to generate competition for CPs or double binds with DA links. Please be able to name at least 5 topical affirmatives under your interpretation. I am more likely to vote with a clear abuse story. T that I am somewhat predisposed against on this topic are T-must be QPQ. I estimate that I vote on T about 40% of the time that you go for it. I also find that Neg teams often kick a T that they are winning on and go for a T that they are losing. Please give me a solid voter. "Voter for Fairness/Education" is probably not enough, please warrant that claim.

__**RVI**__ I am possibly open to RVIs on horribly abusive T arguments and/or other procedurals, but be sure to prove abuse--I will not RVI just because you are topical, you have to prove how running T on a topical Aff is abusive to the extent that it warrants a ballot. I've never voted on RVI in Policy debate.

__**Theory**__ I always enjoy a good meta-debate. The threshold for me voting on theory is often quite high--but I will vote on it if enough work is being done. 10 reasons why PICs or Conditionally is bad is different from why I should vote against a team that decides to do these things. If you really intend to go for theory and have me vote on it, I am FAR more likely to do so if you run a full Theory shell on a new sheet (Interpretation, Violation, Standards, and Voter) rather than just dropping an underdeveloped set of reasons why X is bad on the CP flow. I cannot stress enough that it's very important to have a stable interpretation and show why your opponent violates this interpretation and why that interpretation is best for debate or the violation has resulted in in-round abuse

__**Case**__ It is EXTREMELY rare, but I will vote on case. I grew up in the Stock Issues era, so I'm willing to pull the trigger if there is literally no Inherency. Usually a 1AC is a factually true argument because there's been so much time to research it. Occasionally the case is flawed. I will vote on a plan flaw as well. Because I believe that I am somewhat neg-biased in other areas, In the absence of Neg offense, a 1% or greater risk of solvency is usually enough to affirm.

__**Presumption/ Policy Norms**__ The Aff carries the Burden of Proof and a Plan, and the Neg has Presumption and the Status Quo. I do believe the Aff has a responsibility to make a prima facie case. That being said, I can count on one hand the number of times I have voted on presumption and I think they were all novice rounds. I believe by default that the Aff is the only team with Advocacy and the Neg always retains the Status Quo. (See the CP section for more detail). Once you decide to run a plan, anything that isn't the plantext becomes possible Neg ground. I have no problem PICs or Agent CPs. I also believe pretty strongly that Severance WILL COST YOU THE ROUND. Do not sever from your plantext. Perms are tests of competition, severance perms are bad. (See Permutations)

__**Fiat**__ My Interpretation of Fiat: The agreement among debaters that the debate is about what SHOULD happen, not what WILL happen. The debate is about whether the Plan is a GOOD idea or a BAD idea. If debate was about what will happen, we're reducing the role of the activity to weather-forecasting and every ballot decision would be validated or invalidated by the events of the future. I have a tough time evaluating "fiat good" or "fiat bad" arguments because I don't fundamentally think of the debaters as "role-playing" the federal government. To me, fiat exists to allow the debate to happen. It is an agreement of the debate community, and not much more. I suppose a subcategory of this is Intrinsic Perms and the associated Theory. I don't like these arguments, but occasionally they are a legitimate assertion of Aff Fiat power to take out certain DAs that don't address the question of whether the plan should or shouldn't pass.

__**DAs**__ I don't really know what to write here. Uniqueness, Link, Impact--you need all 3. A good brink is nice as well. If your link is weak, be careful that your 2NC uniqueness wall doesn't overpower your link.

__**Politics**__ Most teams do not run politics well. Most politics links are extremely weak. As a result, these aren't my favorite arguments. Teams often don't pay close attention to the date on their evidence. If you are a team that runs politics and is well-prepared with your updates, and have a reasonable link, then please go ahead and run it. I think the quality Political Capital evidence is aff biased because the "bank of political capital" is not often backed by real-world evidence. This is the class of DA that i'm more open to Intrinsicness arguments on.

__**Counterplans**__ I love Counterplans. I love Counterplan theory. I don't think they are taught well anymore. I don't think many debaters understand Counterplans or perm theory very well. I prefer to look at CPs in the Opportunity Cost Model.

I like there to be solid competition. Textual competition is good, Functional Competition is better. Without good competition, you are wasting your time because a single perm will take out the whole CP. A CP presents a hypothetical alternative action that is competitive with the plan and shows that the plan is not NET beneficial when compared to the CP. It's also good to have an internal net benefit- I don't see the strategic value of having the external DA as the only NB to a CP, because the Aff can focus their work on beating the DA and then extend a perm on a noncompetitive CP.
 * Opportunity Cost Model:** I default to an opportunity-cost model of evaluating Counterplan(s). This is the only way perms make sense as tests of competition and not shifts in advocacy. (see Permutations section below)

In general, I do not believe in the ability of an Aff to gain offense on a CP. If you turn the Net Benefit, you have proven only that the CP is NOT an opportunity cost to the plan, and the CP on face is a bad idea. Under the Opportunity Cost model, this doesn't mean that avoiding the CP is an advantage of the plan. This is just a fancy way of the Aff saying "our plan DOESN'T do X harmful action, and thus we win". Why not just add another advantage: "the 1AC doesn't kill puppies?" Allowing advantages for what the 1AC doesn't do (rather than avoids) could get out of hand very quickly. If you want to gain offense on a CP as an affirmative, you need to show that the CP would happen in the status quo, and that the plan prevents it. This is essentially turning the CP into a DA by providing the uniqueness, and THEN turning that DA to gain offense.

I do believe I should be able to "Judge-Kick" the CP if the Squo is better than the plan. This goes back to my views on Presumption/Fiat/Prima Facie Case.

I'd prefer the opportunity cost model where I can always just vote for the Squo. Again, feel free to run it, I will listen to it and pretend the Neg has a plantext as well and that I must choose between the 2 Policy options presented.
 * Negative Advocacy Model:** If you want your counterplan to instead be evaluated as Negative Advocacy, then specify that. This model ends up problematic for me as a judge because I might end up voting for an Aff that is a bad idea to avoid a CP that's a worse idea. I've never been able to live with this model because of that possibility.

__**CP Permutations**__ Perms are a test of competition. They are used to disable a Counterplan that isn't mutually exclusive (or competitive) with the plan. The reason that a perm can even exist while severance is a voter is why I default to an opportunity-cost model of CPs. If your perm is successful and shows that there is no competition, that is all the work I really need you to do on a CP flow. The exception regarding severance is a PIC. Severance perms are bad, At best, they make no sense/ are an illogical argument. At worst, they are severance of part of the plantext and I will drop a team for severing. I'm also predisposed against Perm: Do the CP. If you run this perm, please provide justification.

I am inclined to vote against a PIC if you can provide a real abuse story. More likely, you will overcover the flow and they will kick.

__**Kritiks**__ GO FOR IT. Some of the best rounds I see are K debates. Just be sure that you understand your literature and aren't just reading blocks. Give me a legitimate explanation of what the K is, how it functions and why the Aff links. Be able to answer the questions about it during CX If you are running a discourse K, make sure you don't link to it too. Kritiks should have an Alt--even if that alt is "vote neg". Preferably, they have a more substantial alt than "vote neg". I am open to Aff arguments that without an alt, the K is a "non-unique DA", or that without an alt, the Squo is the only alt, and an analysis of how the K links to the Squo. Otherwise, anything goes.

__**K Perms**__ This is probably one of the best ways to beat a K in front of me. Most K authors actually endorse some sort of actual political action, so the literature base exists and is often quite good. My general thoughts on permutations of Ks is: Vague K alts justify vague K Perms.

__**Framework**__ Makes my job easier. Go ahead. DON'T drop it. I like listening to the role of the ballot arguments. Interesting thought: At most invitationals, if I were to really look at my ballot, its only role is to determine "The better debating was done by [Blank]" so you might not want to go there and have me determine what my ballot wants me to do via a Jurisdiction argument, because if I have to take the ballot literally, I'll just pick who I think is doing the "better debating" which is entirely subjective instead of trying to evaluate who won the round (which is what I usually do)

I am very slightly inclined against performance debate at the high school level because I think most debaters haven't had enough time in the activity to be able to accurately indict its flaws. Having said that, I do often vote for performance teams. You can do it, but you better be good. Show me exactly how the current format is flawed to the extent that you want to reject all of our norms and rebuild from the ground up in your image. I am of the opinion that a VERY small percentage of high school debaters have had enough experience with and exposure to current debate norms to not only understand them completely but also to criticize them, revoke them and redesign the way the activity should function. I know that performance is a strategy of many more teams than that percentage that I estimate. If you do demonstrate that you are an expert in debate theory/norms and that the activity as it is being done now is flawed, then I will be very impressed and you will probably win with double 30s. To me, a good performance team is a team that has done debate for long enough to become bored/jaded with the activity and feels a real deep inner need to criticize it, point out the flaws in it, and advocate for a real change. It's a team that could win the same round WITHOUT using performance because their tech and understanding of debate is so clean.
 * Performance**

If you're using performance just to be cool, you are probably going to get CRUSHED by the other team on the framework debate because you haven't done your homework on debate norms or or your tech is unrefined, or you will win the round outright because they drop framework. Either way, your speaks will suffer. If you run performance, make sure you're ready to roll on why debate as it currently is is bad. Another way to put this is that you will need to prove Inherency and Harms to have me reject the current norms. Without this, I will vote neg on presumption.

My tolerance of and/or exuberance for these arguments follows a sine curve. Ask before the round how i'm feeling about them. IF they play a strategic purpose (like A-spec to generate artificial competition for a CP) then that's great, but it's unlikely i'll be voting on 5 minutes of A-Spec in the 2NR.
 * Specs and SPARK/Wipeout / Vagueness**

I start at a 27 and move up and (rarely) down from there. If I have no trouble flowing your speech, If I don't have to look around to find a place to flow your argument, If you signpost well, and direct me to the right part of the right page, Then you will get a 29.0. The whole idea of how to get speaks in front of me is to keep me flowing and keep me from thinking until the end of the round. The less I think during your speech, the higher your points. A real 30 is described as "Martin Luther King Jr. -- ON A GOOD DAY" Your speech must be epic. Memorable for years to come. That being said, I will hand out one or two 30s during the course of a tournament because I realize that at some tournaments the break still depends on speaks in the down-2 bracket and thus I use the 30 as my personal endorsement that you should be in late outrounds.
 * Speaker Points**

__**Final Thoughts**__ Yes I know I wrote too much. I err on the side of more information. If you are reading this before a round starts, I won't mind if you want to read for a bit. The way I see it, an extra minute or two before the round is better than me having to spend an extra 5-10 minutes at the end of the round explaining something.

If you want a clarification or to dispute or question anything in here--I welcome the discussion. My email is Tejavepa@gmail.com or vepa@usc.edu. I am usually wearing a USC hat at tournaments if you prefer to chat in person.