Awsare,Shree

Shree Awsare Columbia University School Strikes: Monta Vista High School Experience: 4 years in HS, debating in college (3 years)

Good debates should have clash, as well as warranted, impacted arguments. I find that when I ask for cards I am either (A) stealing your cites, (B) there was a disagreement about the evidence, or (C) there was no warranted clash coming out from either side. I would prefer that teams give comparative, impacted explanations of their evidence in the speeches--I frown upon debaters who rely on extensions of claims coupled with catchphrases like "read the evidence after the round". I am unlikely to evaluate shoddily extended cards, even if the cards are amazing. Some specific points--

Topicality: I'll default to competing interpretations absent a different way of adjudication. You can convince me that in-round abuse or different ways of evaluating T are good if warranted. Although I have some critical proclivities, I am fairly sympathetic to affirmative claims that the aff should defend the resolution. On the other hand, negatives tend to do a terrible job of answering kritiks of T--you should probably engage with the substance of the K aff or have good reasons why questions of fairness subsume their argument.

Theory: I think I hack for theory more than some other judges. I'll vote on dropped cheapshots if you do a good job in the rebuttal explaining the argument and shutting doors on possible cross-applications that the crafty 2nr/2ar will try to spin. I would appreciate it if you slowed down a little for your theory arguments so I can flow them.

Case Debate: Woefully underutilized. Even if you're a "one off" K debater, case takeouts and turns are good to have.

DA/CP debate: I am a big fan of PICs as well as advantage CPs on the negative. Of course, I'll evaluate the theoretical concerns that come with these, including fiat abuse, consult good/bad, conditionality, whatever. Disads should have a well explained impact calculus and a strong explanation of the link debate.

K debate: While the big picture is very important for these debates, I do prefer a cleaner, more technical K debate that engages responses on the line-by-line so I don't have to intervene. I think these questions usually either come down to a sequencing issue and either (A) a permutation that solves the residual links and alt presses or (B) impact turns and alt presses (usually in conjunction with framework). As a policy aff debating a K, making generic wrong forum claims aren't going to get you anywhere. I think your theory arguments should be specific to the nature of the alternative and how it may be unfair. Keep in mind that I am not well read on every K author, so err on the side of explaning your arguments rather than filling your speeches with jargon. I am familiar with: Foucault, Butler, second wave feminism, Queer Theory, Nietzsche, Baudrillard. I have a cursory understanding of psychoanalysis but I will be the first to admit that I don't understand the intricacies of this debate--if you explain this in a coherent way to me in the debate, I will be fine.

Performance/K aff: I've dabbled in both before. They're best when they're at least tangentially related to the resolution, though it's up to you. I will be open to hear framework/theory questions on the negative, but it seems like you will need some arguments (either cards or analysis) to indict the case itself, or you'll have some trouble arguing against the specific "case outweighs fairness"-esque arguments. If you're going for T, you should probably try to win topical version of the aff arguments to mitigate their offense.