Mazumdar,+Ria

My past forensics experience includes five years in Policy debate, Lincoln Douglas debate, and US Extemp at Albuquerque Academy locally and nationally (2010-2015). I currently do parliamentary debate on the APDA circuit for Tufts University. My favorite arguments include well-researched plans, Econ/finance DAs, IR-related DAs and CPs, and logically sound K’s. The following paradigm is far from comprehensive so please don’t hesitate to ask me any questions at any time.

My email is ria.mazumdar13@gmail.com.

__Speed__ I enjoy speed and did a lot of fast debate in high school. That being said, I haven’t been around spreading in a while and won’t be able to flow you if you aren’t clear – that means I yell clear twice and then stop flowing. It’s your responsibility after that to look at me and tell whether I’m keeping up with you.

__CX__ Please be respectful. Other than that, you know what to do. I’m way less likely to be generous with your speaks if you’re rude to your opponent.

__Extensions__ I have a relatively low threshold for 1AR extensions. In general, make sure that you are not extending through ink and explain WHY an extension of a dropped argument matters (that means reiterating the warrant, however briefly) and you’ll be fine.

__A prioris/Spikes/Triggers__ These “tricks” can be really strategic, but I’m also very receptive to arguments as to why I should reject them based on some type of inherent disadvantage that they create in-round. Make sure you’re warranting all of your justifications clearly in your initial speeches; I don’t want to hear an insignificant blip in the AC come out as a 3-minute 1AR extension out of a “spike.”

__Framework__ I think competing framework debates can be pretty interesting. Make sure you’re doing lots of substantive weighing and warranted initial justification for whatever framework you present.

__Plans/CPs__ I ran CPs all the time in high school and I’m a big fan of these arguments. Please slow down when you read the plan/counterplan/advocacy texts and tags of solvency advocates.

__Theory__ If you run frivolous or unnecessary theory like AFC, I will likely not be very happy. Please try to limit your theory arguments to instances of actual in-round abuse; topicality can often be a great way to win a debate if run strategically.

Tell me whether there’s an RVI and whether I should be dropping the argument or debater.

Tell me whether I should prefer competing interpretations or reasonability AND WHY. This is especially important with “I meet” arguments. If you go for reasonability, make your brightline clear. I’m more likely to buy this type of clear argument especially if the round itself clearly hasn’t been affected that adversely.

Most importantly, please weigh competing standards for me if that’s what the debate comes to. This is the most important part of the theory debate, and talking about education vs. fairness rather than fleshing out the substance of your shells is probably a waste of time. Fairness probably matters.

__DAs__ I love disads, but you need to make the links very explicit. Especially with politics, I’ll probably have a relatively high threshold – tell me why the aff specifically triggers your impacts, not just that “all policies regarding mass surveillance are controversial.”

__Kritiks__ Love well-run Ks and kritikal affs. Please slow down for your plan/alt/perm texts. If you’re running a relatively obscure philosopher that the average college student is not expected to have read, it won’t hurt you to provide a short overview and make good analysis rather than obscuring your arguments with unnecessary jargon. I’m likely to call for cards during K debates. Making accessible arguments using dense literature will definitely raise your speaks.

Speaking of which… average speaks are a 28. Speaks reflect both your presentation and general technical skill. Will be higher if you run creative arguments, are respectful of people in the room, and/or come up with some relevant puns. I will dock your speaks significantly if you make any type of racism good/genocide good arguments.

Flashing doesn’t have to count as prep but please be reasonable and just don’t take forever; it’s pretty obvious when debaters try to steal prep. Please try and preflow before the round. I’m a fan of pre-round disclosure, especially of plan/advocacy texts.

At the end of the day… be original! Explain and weigh everything in the round for me and try to engage in as much direct clash as possible. Above all, please be respectful and ready to engage in debate as a productive conversation.