Patel,+Vinay


 * Niles West (Debater 2010-2014, Coach 2014-Present)**
 * Northwestern University (2014-Present)**

I'm always working on recognizing my habits as a judge, so take this with a grain of salt. I think all types of debate are interesting and enjoyable as long as you do it well. I’d rather you do what you do best than what you think I like best. I am not perfect. I am not a machine. Connect with me (on important arguments, not as friends. I don't want to be your friend). Make Arguments. Say Words.

//Note for Novices// -- Congratulations for reading judge philosophies before debates. You probably don't need to read much more than this. If you've figured out what's going on in a debate round, how to flow, go line by line, and do impact calc & comparison, you will do really well, and I will be impressed. I am more strict about novice tag-team CX because too many novices abuse the privilege. Bring your own timer. Please do not try to shake my hand after debates. I am your judge, not your friend. Don't make things weird.

__Procedures__ I care deeply about plan texts and counterplan texts being written correctly. More than grammar, this is an issue of clearly defining the scope of your ability to fiat action and making sure your plan/CP does what you say it does. Texts must be entirely written out. I strongly prefer that you do your own CXs. Your partner is a lifeline, not the focus of the CX. I will let you know if your tag-team gets out of hand. I do not take prep for emailing or flashing, but it needs to be done efficiently. When you end prep time, I expect you to have your speech ready and have a road map. Often times, I feel that people aren't speaking loud enough. Be confident and aggressive, not rude and insulting. Don't cheat. You should clearly state at which word you are marking a card during your speech. If a prep or speech clock is not running, you should not do or look like you are doing any preparatory activity related to the debate. Don't lie.

__Tech Over Truth__ Truth and evidence quality are important and are usually persuasive, but I feel more comfortable rewarding you for work you have done in the round than punishing you for not answering true arguments that your opponent hasn't meaningfully developed. Having a card on something doesn't always beat a good analytic press. I will not assume dropped arguments are true if you haven’t done the work to extend it. Good analysis needs to make it all the way through to the final speeches. You will be rewarded for keeping my flow organized. You can make all of the arguments you need to win the debate, but I cannot find them or understand your strategy, you may be disappointed with the results.

__Kritikal Arguments__ I think they’re interesting and useful as long as they’re articulated well. If you’re going for Security and can’t explain threat construction or Wilderson when you don’t know what social death is, you will most likely lose unless the other team messes up which will make me upset with everyone. With enough work, even the most generic K can be devastating. Make your arguments apply to the aff, or I will be very sympathetic to a perm. You must advance some coherent normative claim for me to explain why my ballot should go to your team. I didn't realize that this was a controversial issue, but after judging some Bataille and Baudrillard debates, I learned that I was mistaken. What is the alt? Is there an alt? I prefer it when K affs are tied to the topic, have a clear advocacy/method, and a clear reason to vote aff in the debate at hand (not reliant on what happens after the debate or outside of it). I am willing to pull the trigger both for and against framework. Neg teams may struggle in front of me if they choose not to engage the aff at all. Thinking of good T versions of the aff are very useful for the neg and can be very dangerous for the aff. Generic state good/bad debates don't necessarily tell me whether advocating governmental policy with fiat in a debate round is good or bad. Impact analysis and comparison is very important for both sides. I often question the role of the judge, the ballot, and the debate space on my own time without resolving anything, so deciding these and other issues should be debated out in round. Be sure to explain how I should be making my decision under whichever framework you propose.

__Counterplans__ Specific Counterplans are cool. Advantage CPs are good; if you have a bunch of planks with totally unrelated solvency advocates, I might find it unreasonable at some point. I would prefer that you read some form of solvency advocate (not necessarily specific to the aff) in the 1NC, but I don't think I should punish you for thinking of a smart CP on the fly. There’s a theory debate to be had about many different categories of CPs. If you want the aff to defend something that they have not said explicitly, you need some pretty good evidence for me to not be sympathetic to aff clarification arguments. Generic Conditions, Consult, and other Process CPs are dubious in both competition and theory, but I have read those types of CPs and am willing to vote on them. Aff teams should make sure that their permutations are coherent.

__Theory__ Theory arguments can be used very effectively, but they usually don’t get developed enough before the final rebuttals. I usually won't reject the team on issues other than conditionality, but sometimes rejecting a certain argument is enough to beat the other team. If no one has articulated what I should do about a theory violation, I will default to whatever I think will resolve the impacts best. Some of this was covered in the CPs section. Regarding conditionality, having 1 conditional option is probably fine, having 2 conditional options is probably okay, and having 3 conditional options is probably pushing it. New affs probably justify more leniency. All of this is debatable, but those are my predispositions. If you're going to read an interpretation, try not to do so arbitrarily. If you extend a theory interpretation, your standards should be explained in the context of that model of debate compared to the other team's model. I will not kick the CP or alt for you unless you say so in the 2NR. Does T come before theory? Probably.

__Topicality__ Put in the effort to describe debate under each interpretation (Case lists, why certain types of affs are good/bad, specific examples of ground gained/lost, why that aff/neg ground is good for debate) to explain why your interpretation is a better version of the topic for debate. I will default to competing interpretations. However, a reasonability argument is winnable and very useful for the aff. To be clear, reasonability is an argument about how reasonable your interpretation is for debate, not how reasonable or predictable the aff itself is. Well-researched T debates are interesting to watch.

__Disadvantages__ Good. The more specific, the better. Most politics theory arguments are bad.