Jayasumana,+Sahan

JJUDGE PHILOSOPHY DESCRIPTION Name: Sahan Jayasumana School:Georgia Tech/Marist/Fort Collins High School State:CO/GA

Judge adaptation is an important skill for debaters to master, please answer with as much or littler information as you feel necessary with the understanding that all debaters will see this before the round. 1. Your experience with debate (mark all that apply): A. Coach of a team: Policy assistant coach at marist high school, Parli coach of Georgia tech B. Policy Debater: HS Policy Experience C. Parli Debater: College Parli Experience D. Judge policy debate: Frequently E. Judge parli debate: Frequenty 2. I have judged 6 years of debate. I have judged (circle one) 40+ varsity rounds this season. 3. Which best describes your approach to judging debate:

Tabula rasa/games – I believe all assumptions are up for question and will try to evaluate what is on the flow to the best of my ability, that said there are certain assumptions (in terms of meaning of particular concepts, biopower, competition etc) that I have that may-or may not be similar to the average debaters, therefore comprehensive explanation should be privileged over quick extensions.

In addition I am more than willing to vote on dropped voting issues, however I prefer that they get substantive discussion inoder to prevent me from having to weigh them against other standards. For example instead of “they dropped severance perms bad, vote judge” I would prefer “they dropped on severance perms arugements … standards… it matter more than their k’s illegit argument because… more standards … vote on it”

Furthermore I will assume no new arguments in the 2AR/2NR unless it is otherwise debate, however I recommend that 1AR’s and 2NR’s “close doors” inorder to prevent abuse by other teams. Please Rate the following on a scale of 1 to 5, with 3 meaning that the two are equally important 4. RATE OF DELIVERY : Slow and deliberate 4/5 Rapid Although I can probably take as much speed as team like, I would prefer a round at less than top speed because they tend to have more clash and focus on substantive issues. The only thing I really ask is that people slow down for the plan text and any other advocacy texts.

Moreover the more dense the literature the more slower delivery will help, im fine with top speed advantage analysis but for K’s, theory and advocacy texts I would prefer slower analysis so that I don’t missinterpretate or worse miss entirely an argument made in the round. 5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS Few well discussed arguements > The more arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION vs ISSUES Debates primary education comes from improving communication skills or resolving substantial issues? Resolving substantive issues, I will vote for the team that wins their advocacy is, for lack of a better word, ‘gooder’. Higher speaker points for better speakers and better debaters. 7. Trichot (Parli only) I believe that the resolution determines if a case is fact, policy or value (aka the type of criterion is inherent in the resolution) or I believe that debaters can choose if a resolution is fact, policy or value provided its fair. Inherent in resolution < Debaters choice I think the entire activity should be focused on maximizing debaters education and creative potential, however both of those constructs may be refuted critically or theoretically. 8. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: Never Rarely Often Always I am more than willing to vote on Kritiks of Topicality as well, provided that the affirmative weigh their impacts the standards. Critical counterstands are fine as well. 9. COUNTERPLANS I am willing to vote on Counterplans Never Rarely Often Always 10. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES I am willing to vote on Generic Dis-advantages, including politics Never Rarely Often Always 11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS Never Rarely Often Always – I will vote on severance perms bad and intrinsic perms bad, however if it is dropped I would prefer some analysis other than “they dropped it, vote judge” Side bias args should be a waste of time, +1 speaker point if you explain why in round. 12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS Never Rarely Often Always I ran feminism, nonviolence, imperialism, nihilism (but everyone has a different definition of nihilism), performance. I am familiar with zizek, biopower, neoliberalism, nihilism, class theory I am relatively unfamiliar with lacan, race theory