Koshy,+Cherian


 * Cherian Koshy**: Former Director of Debate at Apple Valley HS (MN), former Director of the University of Iowa's National Summer Institute in Forensics. I was employed by the National Speech & Debate Association until 2016.

I haven't seen the inside of a competitive circuit round in more than two years. The stuff below is what I last thought about debate when I last thought about debate.
 * Update 4/2015**

I'm not sure what the background information does for you as a debater but here it is anyway: I don't think we had strikes when I debated at the TOC but maybe Anjan can correct me. I debated for four years in high school and have coached every year since graduation except one. I have also taught at institutes since graduating. In general, I don't consider myself firmly in the traditional or progressive camp but see many merits in both. I don't suggest that you alter your debate style in order to mimic what you think an exemplary round might look like to me. There's little chance I could describe it here anyway. As such, I'm going to proceed by outlining deal breakers that identify some major issues/concepts/argumentative strategies and how I evaluate them in rounds. Please feel free to ask questions prior to the round if anything here is unclear but please be specific about what you are asking. In a vast majority of cases where debaters knew my paradigm (and in one case quoted it to me in a TOC elim round) they have not been surprised by my decisions. I hope that this serves to give you a good sense of how to pick up my ballot and whether you have before I disclose and give comments. **Typically, I don't flow debates on paper because I can keep track of 99% of rounds in my head. If you've had me as a judge, you've noticed that I still reference the line-by-line specifically. At the TOC, however, I will flow rounds so you don't have to ask about it but read the speed section closely.** I don't know how many rounds I've judged on this topic or this year. It's somewhere in between none and Dan Meyers but I've seen a lot of rounds and closely follow the topic and the arguments.
 * Paradigm Introduction**

I am neither a theory-phile nor a theory-phobe. When executed properly and in appropriate circumstances, I believe theory to be a useful and necessary part of defining the 'rules of the game.' Please reserve your use of theory for these situations and that is to say that a theory violation that is missing one of the parts or isn't extended properly will not be part of my decision calculus. That said, I believe that all theory issues are evaluated before any other issue in the round and that they are lexically prior to any other substantive issue. In nearly every case, I will require that a clearly articulated abuse story is present in order to evaluate the theory argument but this can take the form of either in-round abuse or potential abuse. Please just be clear in what you are talking about and why it's important. On topicality, I believe this to be a gateway issue for the affirmative so if the aff loses topicality, they lose. I don't believe that you can RVI topicality, so please don't even attempt that in front of me. It's silly to suggest that because the aff is fair, they win the round; in my book, if the aff is fair, then we can debate. I'll cover other theoretical objections as they relate to specific arguments later. In general, I am not a big fan of theory-baiting or a blatant attempt to "out-tech" your opponent. If it's not necessary, don't do it. Within reason, CX is binding, contradictions are bad, etc. Be reasonable and you'll be fine.
 * Theory arguments**

I can process the information you're reading as fast as you can deliver it. I find that I am almost exclusively better at evaluating arguments at high speeds when I am not flowing but since I will be flowing, I may not write down as much as you'd expect. Rest assured that I am listening to your argument. As should be plainly obvious, you need to be clear if you are going fast. I will say "clear" if you are not and if you hear that from me twice, you should slow down dramatically or you'll lose points. I prefer good fast debate to good slow debate but if you are going to engage in spreading a lot of bad arguments, that will impact your speaker points even if you get the win. I will always prefer carded answers and turns and am much more lenient on speed when you're reading applicable cards. Please be clear with tags, authors, etc so I can easily reference your arguments relative to the answers and signpost more clearly the faster you go. Pausing in the signposting is always good. I don't need an order at the top of the speech unless you need me to sort or start a new page. Speed is not an excuse to omit warrants, skip extensions, or otherwise be blippy. I'm not a fan of the "throw a bunch of random answers to a case and see what sticks" strategy. Please use the speed tool wisely. Also please be wary of extending through ink, claiming that answers are non-responsive (and making non-responsive answers), and calling arguments turns that aren't turns.
 * Speed**

I am not predisposed (either in favor or opposed) to alternative strategies in principle. However, I will hold you to the standards of argument that apply to the strategy you've chosen. I presume that we default to the value premise/criterion model unless some other evaluative metric is presented. On the 2009 TOC topic, I certainly believe that such a model has many limitations so as long as you explain how I should evaluate arguments and win your framework, that is how I will decide the debate. Certain alternative strategies have inherent structures that are important such as kritik that must have links, impacts, and an alternative; a counterplan must be net-beneficial and mutually exclusive etc. The phrase "law solves" does not constitute a counterplan in my book and will possess a low threshold for answer by the aff, for example. Off case arguments as debaters like to call them seem to me to just function as DA's to the case unless otherwise explained. Anything that you label as "independent" should have an independent evaluatory mechanism. I still don't know what an a priori argument is and am not a big fan of them but I won't ignore them if they are warranted and unanswered. However, just because you label something as "pre-standards" or "a priori" doesn't make it so. You need to warrant the argument and explain the evaluation method. I am not impressed by debaters who win the round before they walk in so if you employ that strategy, you may win but you're not getting high points from me. I am predisposed to accept theory arguments about multiple a prioris or contradictory counterplans etc. As well, I'm not sure what overviews are because they serve some other argumentative function so just call them what they are and debate them as such. Finally, if you're running something obtuse or obscure, please be sure you're explaining it well and how it functions in the round. If I don't get it, I can't vote for it.
 * Alternative argumentative strategies (K, CP, DA, etc)**

As I mentioned before, all theory arguments are evaluated first so you don't need to do that leg work for me. If there are multiple theory arguments, though, you'll want to prioritize. The rest you'll need to order for me to help me make my decision. In many cases, debaters get this wrong (saying something is a voting issue doesn't make it one) so I attempt to evaluate the arguments given your order of operations and the correct one to determine how the round plays out. Importantly, if you are going to employ an "even-if" strategy, please be clear about it. I will certainly be receptive to this explanation as long as it doesn't run afoul of conditional/incompatible advocacies. The more incompatible your strategies, the fewer you should run, the clearer your explanation needs to be, and the lower my threshold is for accepting a theory argument. Evaluating arguments is typically relative to the round but in general, arguments that are clearly impacted and weighed relative to a standard are the very important. In general, I don't tend to "pull the trigger" on an isolated extension especially if it's not impacted and applied to the overall set of arguments. By this, I mean that I'm not a fan of the "cheap shot" strategy. Impact calculus is really important for every set of arguments in the debate.
 * Evaluating the round**

I think CX can shatter an opponent and the proper use of flex-prep is devastating. Short of additional clarification before the round, I'll presume that everyone's using flex and that questions can be asked/answered after the constructives. I disagree with some of my colleagues that rudeness is a problem in the activity. Having fun is great, having fun at the expense of another is not and you will be penalized for it. I understand that for many of you, these are some of your last debates and as such, I will attempt to do my best to make sure I work to evaluate your arguments. Short of a crushing, I'll take some time to make my decision and give you my RFD and some comments. If we can't take care of that at the time the round ends, please feel free to find me.
 * Final thoughts**

If you have other questions that you'd like to ask either before or after the round, I'm the tall Indian guy. I'll probably be in the group of other Indians (all three of us) so you shouldn't have trouble locating the brown. I'll typically be in the lobby of the Classroom building or around there if I'm not eating. Good luck and have fun in Lexington!