Pandey,+Stuti

Overall I try to be a clean slate as I woke into the round. What this means for you is that I attempt to be as non-interventionist as possible, which indicates that you shouldn’t expect me to tie any loose strings for you. I see the round as the debaters doing the math, and I’m there to check the answer. Of course it’s not that all that simple though, so:

Background: I debated LD on circuit for Monta Vista in 2006-2007 year, and prior to that I had a brief stint with policy.

Speed: I think a medium spread is fine as long it is close to flawless in enunciation. If a debater isn’t being clear then I will stop flowing and look at you in frustration (or the like), but if it is *really* terrible I will say “clear.” If you would like for me to appropriately flow and keep in mind an argument I expect that you deliver it to me as clearly as possible

Theory: I kind of like theory debate. ONLY if it is delivered in a fully developed fashion. In a theory shell my predisposition is to look for an interpretation, violation, standards, and voting issues – but if you have a different way of delivering theory then make sure that you are justifying it well and it demonstrates to me the clear abuse story and its impact in the round/for debate (which is what the traditional theory shell generally accomplished). If you are breaking new frontiers in theory (I don’t know what that would entail) then that is exciting, but the explanation and impact story need to be clear to me. I see this as being before any case debate, unless told otherwise. I see its function as to throw out a certain argument rather than to vote on theory itself (unless you tell me otherwise, but I would be looking for an extremely high threshold of abuse).

Ks/Arguments with discursive impacts If justified why this comes before everything else, then I am disposed to voting on this argument before anything else in the round. I cannot say that I am a fan of butchering continental authors (who seem to often be used for these arguments, but really I don’t like any author being butchered), so please be running a clear position and if you’re using cards they must solidify your claims, not confuse them. Your best bet for doing well with a K is to first and foremost not confuse me, then after that I feel able to securely evaluate what you just said. I look for some alternative to be articulated in a Kritik

A prioris ? If you tell me something is a priori I won’t believe you. This means that you have to tell me why a certain argument/position is a priori. You must label an argument a priori (or however you wish to say it that reflects this quality) when you run it, not pull it through into a rebuttal and then suddenly endow it with magical a priori powers.

Value/Value-Criterion Of course this is acceptable. I have an understanding of how this functions and how to weigh this, but for me I really see it as a clear enunciation of standards for the round. If there is a glaring difference in two debater’s standards then I expect some attempt at resolve/showing why to accept one over the other. If this part of the debate goes ignored or is poorly covered then I get real confused on how to weigh a round and have to flip a coin. Just kidding. But really, if there is a discrepancy in standards then I have a high expectation for decent debate in this area or else I am essentially left with little idea of what mechanism to use to weigh the round.

Did I miss something? Probably, so ask me about it.

Debating: Please cleanly extend warrants and impacts. Don’t articulate brand new impacts in later speeches that would have existed in earlier ones.

Speaker points: Everyone starts off with 30, making me sad means that I deduct half a point.

Basically, whatever you decide to run, whether it is within or outside of my currently perceived notion of debate (including narratives, performances, the next big thing, etc..), then I’m just looking for a justification on your part.