Elisetty,+Abhi

Abhi Elisetty Bronx High School of Science '11 NYU '15

I debated for four years at the Bronx High School of Science, competing in various regional and national-circuit tournaments (though I mainly debated nationally in the latter half of my career). I now coach LD for Bronx Science.
 * Experience:**


 * New things:**
 * If I call evidence after the round and I see the minimized text is below 8pt in whatever font you're using AND you don't disclose, do not expect speaks to be above 26, regardless of how well you did in the round.
 * If you refuse to flash after being asked, I will deduct 2 speaker points from what you otherwise would've gotten.

I believe that debate is, at its core, an educational activity and as a judge/coach, I have some minimal obligation to protect the educational value of the activity while still giving debaters a reasonable amount of freedom. People say I intervene, but I don't really know what that means. I guess I don't adjudicate rounds with a "clean slate," for a brain, whatever that might entail. I no longer understand framework as it is utilized in LD, but if you run it I guess I'll do my best to evaluate it the competing moral philosophies as they apply to the specific case of the resolution. Theory is a reason to drop the argument and a matter of reasonability.
 * In a nutshell:**

I will not look for the "easy way out," I will look for the right way out. This doesn't mean I will actively do work for the debaters, it just means that I won't be lazy when I make my decision. If the neg has a "prestandards"/gateway-issue/theory argument with two responses on it and the aff has substantive offense that links to a framework with 30 responses, I'll still vote aff if the two responses make sense and the 30 responses don't.

--Skepticism triggers --Generic theory preempts (i.e. "aff gets access to RVIs," "no necessary but insufficient burdens," etc...). --Presumption/permissibility arguments --AFC/AEC
 * IMPORTANT (this section used to be at the bottom labeled "misc" but no one read it so I am moving it to the top):**
 * If your AC/NC has any of the following, it's in your best interest to remove them before you debate in front of me:

I don't just have a "high threshold" for voting/listening to these arguments; I will not flow them at all and won't consider them even if they're dropped and cleanly extended in the rebuttals, so it's in your best interest to save some time in the AC/NC by just not reading them in the first place. I will drop you with a 0 if you run contingent standards. I will drop you with a 0 if you purposely try to wash substance in order to trigger permissibility/presumption.
 * Since I will never vote off presumption/permissibility, I will vote off of risk of offense if need be. If this is not viable (for whatever reason) I will vote for the debater who I think has made generally smarter arguments in the round/who annoyed me the least.
 * Speaking of CX...it's binding. I consider it as much a speech as any other and will be intently listening (so don't ask if I'm “cool with flex prep”). However, you should not use CX as a tool for explaining arguments that were poorly explained in your actual speeches.
 * Look at me during CX, not your opponent.
 * CX always checks.
 * Extension evidence: The ideal extension evidence would directly refute your opponent's arguments while casting your original claim in a new, more persuasive light; it should not provide a missing link for the initial argument.


 * Framework****:**
 * ** I ** won't come into the round with a fixed set of opinions on what the role of the judge/ballot is.
 * That being said, I find myself increasingly unpersuaded by framework as a response to performative arguments. I'll probably be annoyed if this is how you choose to deal with arguments that are not explicitly tied to the resolution.
 * The way framework is utilized in LD and the way it is supposed to fit into the judge's decision calculus no longer makes sense to me.
 * I don't think you have to win a moral theory first to claim that genocide/extinction/racism/oppression is bad (that is not to say I cannot be persuaded otherwise; for example, I think there are plenty of good reasons why extinction isn't all that bad, but my default view, absent specific arguments, is that the cessation of human life on earth is an impact that should probably be avoided).
 * The alternative to this is to weigh your actual impacts against your opponent's, rather than weigh competing moral theories. The reason your impacts matter more might ultimately be grounded in some form of ethical reasoning, but these weighing arguments should always be contextualized with the actual impacts in the round, rather than abstract moral principles.
 * Take away from this rant: Please run cases without an explicit framework (i.e. a moral theory preceding your substantive arguments) as long as you weigh in your latter speeches (because framework after all, is just a method to weigh apparently disparate impacts).

>
 * Speed:**
 * I generally don't have a problem flowing fast rounds, but I prefer speed as a means of developing a deeply warranted ballot story rather than as a means of getting out as many blips as possible.
 * I will not call cards because you were unclear or I didn't catch the first iteration of an argument and then understood it later. It is your job to explicitly compare contradictory evidence and not mine; I have seen too many rounds where judges call evidence after the round and just vote on which is better instead of the arguments made by the debaters in round. The debate is between the debaters, not the authors. However, if there is absolutely no weighing/evidence comparison done and I have no other way of evaluating the round than to evaluate the evidence, I will call evidence, but I will not be happy.
 * Slow down when you're reading a string of analytics or dense philosophical arguments. Also, increase your volume/inflection for reading important tags/arguments.
 * **Clearly number arguments...don't segue into a new argument using "also" or "moreover." I find myself becoming increasingly annoyed when debaters don't do this.**
 * Theory:**
 * I default to reasonability. Some form of abuse must be demonstrated for me to pull the trigger on theory. This doesn't mean you can just be like "come on...I'm running a stock case...this isn't abusive" in response to theory. I expect a clear definition of what constitutes abuse given in the round. I won't just use my "gut instinct" to "feel out" the threshold for abuse.
 * Violations should be clarified in CX. By this, I don't mean that you can just vaguely mention something tangentially related to the violation. If you are planning on running theory after the AC, you must ask your opponent something to the effect of "will you exclude X argument?" I will be really receptive to I meet's/no abuse arguments absent this clarification.
 * You will drop with a 0 if you run necessary but insufficient burdens bad and say your opponent violates because she has multiple framework justifications.
 * I'm open to voting off RVIs but will hold them to the same standard I hold normal theoretical arguments (you can't just say RECIPROCITY GOOD--VOTE AFF IF I'M WINNING THEORY).
 * I tend to give more weight to the spirit of an interpretation than to the letter. So if you're terrible at writing interpretations and your opponent makes an "I meet," but doesn't explain how the standards no longer apply, you can make the argument that there is still some violation of fairness.
 * Don't run frivolous theory i.e. must run a plan, run a particular philosophy, have a solvency advocate for a stock whole res case, specify an actor/aspec for a stock whole res case, multi-actor fiat bad for a stock whole res case, etc...


 * Speaker points:**
 * The most important facet of any round is argument interaction. Don't just read a card that contests your opponent's claim then presume that you are ahead on the debate because you read your card after your opponent did. Tell me how the arguments interact with each other and with the ballot.
 * I will yell “clear” as many times as it takes for you to become clear enough for me to understand. Simply multiply the number of times after the first I say “clear” by 0.5 to determine how many speaker points you lose each time.
 * I had indicated earlier that I'm not a lazy judge, but that doesn't mean you should make me do work if you can avoid it; my ideal RFD should be the winning debater's last speech verbatim. However much I must deviate from that will be reflected in speaker points; the less you make me think, the higher your speaker points will be.
 * I rarely base speaker points off of the first iteration of an argument; I will not be impressed by an amazing AC that you fail to explain/extend strategically in rebuttal speeches. Thus, speaks are almost directly a function of the quality of latter speeches.
 * Throwing around vacuous weighing buzzwords (like magnitude, timeframe, probability etc...) without explaining how they interact with the standard will probably annoy me and lower your speaker points.
 * Don't be rude. Be humble. While genuine humor and assertiveness are fine in CX (and often appreciated), I find that the national circuit has created a culture where even the most minor accomplishments inflate debaters' egos to unreasonable heights, which I find immeasurably irritating.
 * The more times you use the word "trigger" non-substantively (i.e. skepticism trigger, permissibility trigger), the more your speaks will suffer.
 * I don't know what you have to do to get a 30, so don't ask.


 * Annoying idiosyncrasies to avoid:**
 * "[X argument] comes out of [Y author]" -- Anytime this is said I just envision the argument bleeding out from the author's eyes.
 * "don't look to my opponent's argument" -- Ok, I won't "look" to that argument -- but I'll still vote off of it.
 * Using silly abbreviations like "skep" or "deont" in place of the actual words.
 * Being overly technical/general inability to communicate like a normal person in CX. By this I mean, for example, prefacing all of your CX questions with "let's go to [specific place on the flow]" instead of just asking your question about the argument, or, conversely, answering your opponent's questions with "that's 'in' [author name]" instead of just explaining the argument.
 * Not writing down how much prep time you and your opponent have left and then asking me as if I am supposed to be keeping track of these things.
 * Asking filler/vacuous questions in CX so you can prep while ignoring your opponent's long-winded answers. You should be fully engaged in CX and shouldn't be writing a whole lot down.
 * Stopping the timer in CX if you deem your opponent's answer unsatisfactory and demand that they give the answer you want before restarting the timer.
 * Failing to ensure your laptop has sufficient life prior to the round if you're reading off a laptop.
 * Telling your opponent which files they shouldn't be taking out in your speech i.e. "PUT AWAY YOUR GENERIC CPs"
 * Following each and every one of your opponent's CX answers with "ok, cool."
 * Making faces during your opponent's speech.