Singh,+Abhinava

My name is Abhi, I debated all 4 years throughout high school at Brophy College Prep. I currently am an assistant debate coach for Harker. Despite what predispositions I list below, I am really fine with everything; it’s just your job to outdebate the other team. Here is the quick list of stuff before I start talking about other things:

1. Clarity over speed – I am fine with speed, but if you are unclear I will say clear twice and then start docking speaks. 2. Presumption flips to the side with the least change 3. Consult CP’s/Agent CP’s/Some Process CP’s are probably theoretically illegitimate. 4. I wont kick a CP for you in the 2nr 5. Tech over truth, but smart analytics will beat poor evidence in my mind. 6. Reject the argument 7. Offense-Defense

Aff – I would say that I am a little better for the aff not because of my dispositions but because of a lack of good case specific strategies to take affirmatives down. That being said, I am not the biggest fan of process CP’s, agent cp’s, etc or insanely generic strategies. I will obviously vote for them, but you should not be afraid of going for theory in the 2ar against these CP’s in front of me. As far as less traditional forms of debate go, go for it. My job is to evaluate arguments and in that endeavor, I will try my hardest to make sure that happens!  Ultimately it is your job to persuade me and I will try my hardest to never interfere unless the debate truly is "two ships passing by night" scenario. If you are confident and out tech the other team then you will have my ballot 10/10 times.

2017 Edit

I will admit that I am not as involved with the activity as I was in the past. My feelings about argument evaluation have not changed that much but I will admit that I am not as up to date with all of the topic specific lit/acronyms as I would like to be so please try to elaborate in cx. However, the rest should be fine.

Neg –

Topicality- I thought about topicality a lot in high school, and I am fine with voting for it. I think it is really important for the neg to explain the violation, why your interpretation is better, and why limits outweigh and do the necessary impact analysis to win these debates.As far as this topic goes, I am not super familiar with the topicality literature as to what economic engagement really is, etc. So please be clear as to what your interp/counter interp is and why it is indeed the best way of framing the topic.

DA’s – Love them. If you have a solid case specific DA with a lot defense and/or case turns to go along with it. I am going to be really happy and your speaks will reflect that (execution counts though!). I am not the biggest fan of the politics da, but I understand why it’s necessary. I think intrinsicness is kind of silly, but will nevertheless vote for it. You just have to be really good on the impact debate, and the link debate and I should vote for you. I believe that link controls the direction of uniqueness.

CP’s – I am a big fan of a well researched advantage CP or a really good case specific PIC. However, word PIC’s, Consult CP’s, agent CP’s, process CP’s etc. are CP’s I really dislike. Aside from competition problems, I think you will have to do a lot more work than normal on these debates if you want me to pick you up on a close theory debate. I personally think conditionality is good, but its also something that can be changed, but you have to do a good job explaining why it’s a voter/doing necessary impact calc like you would on a DA.

K’s – Okay, I think some of the best and worst debates I have been in were K debates. I like K’s, I get their utility, and I have a ok understanding of the literature. However, there needs to be a lot of work done on the impact/link level of the K if you want me to pick you up on the K. If you are going to run in, pop some floating PIC in the debate, shout buzz words like epistemology first or ontology first, etc, with shoddy link analysis, you will have a hard time getting my ballot unless the aff really messes things up. However, I think that if you do a thorough explanation of these issues that problematize the affirmative. I will be happy, and the ballot/speaks will reflect that. I would also prefer if you loose a lot of the jargon, and try to explain the thesis of the K in words anyone could understand/use historical examples (I stress this a lot, I am an engineer, I worry about logic gates and getting my code to compile, not questions of ontology, if you are reading some crazy K talking about  I will try my best to understand but without a __coherent__ link, I will find it tough to vote for you). However, I don't think I am alone in this, these are really things that will really help you when going for the K.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">General things, I want to take a page out of John Hienz philosophy, a argument consists of a claim and a warrant. Both must be present for me to evaluate them. I think rounds are getting dangerously shallow and I want to help fix that. Secondly, everyone has to flow. Seriously. This is a important skill for you to learn if you want to get better at this activity and is also a skill that will pay rich dividends along the line in general note taking and information processing. If I see you not flowing, and if your speech reflects that, expect to get a 27~27.5. P <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">rep time stops as the flash drive leaves the computer. I will also not tolerate arguments like rape good, patriarchy good, racism good, etc. This is an activity that should strive to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Trying to discourage others, unnecessary rudeness to partners or anyone in the round is not cool and will only hurt you in the short term when I drop your speaks but along the road later in life. You can be aggressive, that’s totally fine with me, but there is a line between being confident and arrogant.

As a last note, because I don't want to end this philosophy sounding mean, please have fun. This is a cool activity which I cherished a lot in high school and cherish in college as well. Be funny, even if your not funny, go for it. I laugh at literally everything, especially bad puns.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I hope that clears everything up. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask or email me at abhinavasingh16@gmail.com But speak well, debate well, and don’t mess up and I should vote for you.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">___

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">LD

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">So I have found myself occasionally judging LD rounds so I should probably make an addendum here. I evaluate LD similar to the way I view policy debate. I really do not care what you read, traditional cases, plans, etc. Just as long as the case makes sense and is well warranted. I will say that I do find that in a lot of my rounds (probably sampling bias) that not enough is done at the impact level. The discussion of impact calculus is an important one as winning that you have an impact means nothing if it doesn't outweigh anything, so you should probably do more of that. I am okay with theory but trivial theoretical violations are non starters with me. Obviously if you want to defend the sanctity of traditional LD debate and go all in on plans bad, I am not the greatest judge, but I will evaluate everything to the best of my ability.