Solanki,+Ravi

University of Cambridge ‘14
__Things to Know__ This philosophy is meant to be an overview of my take on debate. Please do not take it to be my cut in stone ideology; this is never the case for anyone. Always, and I mean always, do what you do best but do take my philosophy in account. Don’t overadapt – it will hurt you in the end [but that doesn’t mean don’t adapt either].

__Background__ I debated four years for Pennsbury High School in Pennsylvania on both the local and national circuit. I would consider myself a T hack but don’t take that to mean that I vote for it every round; if anything, it means I hold it to a higher standard. If you CAN debate it well, and sadly most of the circuit cannot, then you should have no problem with me on the neg, but more on that later. This doesn’t mean I’m necessarily biased but more so open to these types of arguments.

__Overall Premises of Debate__ There are two reasons why we do debate: for education and success. But there is more than that to it; debate offers us a means for spending our time in an activity that we truly [hopefully] love. That being said, I am firm to the following ideas surrounding debate –
 * 1) Creativity is power. I prized myself off of creative arguments. They don’t need to be devoid of logic [if they are, they probably aren’t that creative]. If you can do something unique and defend yourself, then you’ve placed yourself well in my book. But this doesn’t mean going and taking a generic argument and adding a card or two. I like something diverse and unheard of, something that surprises you.
 * 2) Rudeness is ridiculous. Don’t be rude. Be friendly and have fun, but I know that’s easier said than done. Whatever your motivation, you don’t need to step on others to get ahead.
 * 3) Professionalism is preferred. Take this to mean what you perceive it to be.

__How I Evaluate Debates__ I am a noninterventionist. This means that I take the line-by-line very seriously. If you are technically good, then you’ll do well in front of me. But if you are at a loss of persuasion, then you risk hurting yourself in the end [this doesn’t mean I’ll intervene, but it means that the other team may be more effective at conveying their ideas than you]. That being said, I need qualify: I don’t like voting for false or fake arguments. If they are dropped then, yes, I’ll vote for them. But if you need to prove that Japan is immune to natural disasters to support your advocacy and the other team points out this utter flaw in even a mere three words, well then I’ll be hard pressed to vote against them. As such, here’s how I evaluate analytic arguments and cards: However, I need **qualify** again: this is a general scale. Don’t come quoting this to me in round saying I evaluated myself incorrectly; take this with a grain of salt. Things aren’t this cut and dry.
 * 1) Very smart analytics based on current events, history, and prior knowledge that DIRECTLY refute warrants in cards/other analytics [these tend to be very, very rare]
 * 2) Cards credibly written and from credible sources
 * 3) Smart analytics based on current events, history, and prior knowledge that INDIRECTLY refute warrants in cards/other analytics [again, very, very rare]
 * 4) Cards decently written
 * 5) Decent analytics that act as direct arguments
 * 6) Bad cards
 * 7) Bad analytics

__Thoughts About Specific Arguments__

Case – if you’re the aff, you have to defend this. Don’t lose your case. As for the neg, some of the most powerful arguments are on case. I’d much rather see 4 minutes of case and analytics over a superfluous kritik and yet another conditional CP and net benefit. And don’t feel scared if you’re just using analytics [more later].

DA – I really enjoy disads based on current events [not politics, which is below]. Just be sure your disads are unique. If they aren’t, you’re not winning the debate no matter how much of a link you give me. And yes there can be zero risk of a link.

Politics – Now this is a bit difficult. The usual political capital or popularity link politics disads are ultimately really ridiculous in nature. But it seems no one really knows how to answer these disads logically so I’m forced to evaluate them. In essence, I’ll evaluate it as a regular disad, but just remember that I’m not a fan of these link scenarios and I’d much rather prefer a case specific disad, not just a politics disad with a link that talks about the topic.

CPs – I’m a huge CP fan. If you’ve got a creative PIC you want to try out or really enjoy, go for it. PICs have been some of my favorite arguments in debate and I readily enjoy them. HOWEVER, DO NOT give me generic PICs that you have preblocked out with a kritikal or politics net benefit. I prefer creative case specific ones that come from indepth research. Take the time to read the other team’s evidence as you prep or during the 1AC. These make some of the most powerful arguments in a round and they’re very difficult to defeat.

Ks – I’m not very familiar with too many kritiks out there and I seriously do not think that we can resolve huge philosophical issues in a mere debate round. Hence, I think their value is HIGHLY overvalued by the entire debate community. **However**, if you can make it work, then I’ll listen to it and I am not against voting on them all out. Just be sure to explain in nonkritikal jargon and //qualify them for the round itself rather than for some ephemeral world that doesn’t exist//. But if you performatively contradict, well that’s a different story…

T – As I said, I’m a T hack. I expect proper line-by-line exploitation at levels of the T debate by both teams. I do not want to hear regurgitated answers back and forth but rather actual explanation of warrants and comparison of arguments within the levels of the flow. Remember masking arguments like fairness outweighs education, etc., and don’t forget your voting issues. I will vote on potential abuse; if you’re proved to be not topical, I don’t think you deserve to win the round. And DO NOT give me stupid arguments like lit checks or //especially// the wiki checks [you will lose speaker points for that last one]. T is not an RVI. Competing Interpretations is generally good but I can be persuaded either way depending on quality of arguments. My expectations on how cleanly and efficiently it should be run may deter some of you to read it, but it may not. But as I said, don’t overadapt to what I’m saying.

Other procedurals – yes, I’ll vote on things like Significance, Minor Repair, Jurisdiction, and PMNs, etc. Inherency is a voting issue. If you’re not inherent, sorry, you don’t get my ballot.

Theory – I generally think that conditionality is bad. Anything more than 1 kritik and 1 cp is a big red flag in my mind – you don’t need anything more than that and if you do, well you need to debate smarter then. But just remember to overview your arguments and win the line by line. Specific PICs are good, Word PICs are bad. Out of round abuse claims are ridiculous [unless it involves actual violation of the preconceived rules of tournament and debate etiquette, which then I dissolve my authority on a decision to the higher tournament body, but I do not ever wish to be in that situation – don’t do anything dumb]. Uncondo is ballsy – this means I’ll reward you for it. **Debate is all about risks; the bigger, smarter ones you take, the more you’ll see yourself succeed**. Speed is good, I’m fine with whatever but just don’t go 500 wpm fast. Severance and intrinsicness are usually bad but they //can// have their place, if you know where that is. Vagueness is bad and generally a solvency advocate on a non-PIC CP is needed.

FW – Framework can be your most powerful weapon if you know how to use it well. As the aff, having a FW can significantly boost your chance at answering arguments. As the neg, it may also be useful for you. Think creatively. Overall, I like them a lot, especially ones about links.

Performance – go to poetry; I don’t believe there is room for performance in policy. I will vote you down with ease.

Impacts – please do not read an argument that is constructed as link, extinction, link, extinction, link, extinction. They’re terribly stupid. Magnitude doesn’t always win. Read some Rescher if you think it does.

__Other Things You Should Know__
 * 1) Don’t be mean in round
 * 2) Be polite
 * 3) Do not clip cards – you will lose. This is cheating. And don’t necessarily be afraid to call out another team on it, but that doesn’t mean calling everyone out and hoping it’ll stick one round; that’s just daft.
 * 4) Don’t steal evidence
 * 5) DO NOT STEAL PREP TIME. I WILL KNOW AND I WILL DOCK YOU POINTS AND STOLEN TIME.

__If you’ve got any other questions, ask me before the round. I don’t expect all of you to have read this; rather I expect a lot of you have jumped to certain parts and skimmed my words. That’s fine, just remember: do what you do best and you’ll do fine [most of the time].__