email: cbhatt@udel.edu

I have done mostly CX debate in high school (graduated 2019), so I am fairly familiar with Ks. I have also done LD (and a little PF) and I have seen both progressive and traditional styles of LD so I am good with both.

You can spread, but make sure to signpost/slow down a little for tags.

PCFL quals William Tennent - this is my first time judging in this school year so unfortunately I have not really seen the favored args and meta for this year in terms of policy debate. But I am well experienced in this format so it should be fine.

Be respectful to each other, but also have fun! Good luck.

Former CX debater. Did both policy and K debate. Started high school doing LD.

Do as you wish, and at your own speed, just don't be offensive.

email: unionvillekl@gmail.com – put me on the email chain

overview

i debated for unionville for 4 years as a 2a and read mostly soft-left affs focusing on violence against women/gender minorities. that being said, please do whatever you do best and can explain well.

tech>truth and dropped arguments are true, but please explain why these arguments matter, especially for theory and other blippy arguments

ev spin/contextualization > ev quality, quantity, and recency in a vacuum – but this isn’t an excuse to read bad evidence

have fun and be respectful of everyone in the room. if there’s anything i can do to make debate more accessible to you, please let me know. i won’t vote for anything blatantly racist/sexist/ableist/etc. or anything approaching death good.

specific preferences

cp/da

i like good politics scenarios – if your da is innovative, i’ll be impressed. i’m fine with generics, but you should have a specific link or contextualize your link to the aff.

slow down on cp texts and explain multiple planks in the block. solvency advocates are necessary and even better if they come from the aff’s authors. i won’t kick the cp for you. aff – explain why i shouldn’t vote on sufficiency framing and the specific solvency deficits to the cp.

t

i really like good t debates and i think that many affs aren’t topical. i would prefer a case list and tva in the block if you’re going for t.

competing interps > reasonability

t debates are about your vision of the topic, not in-round abuse.

k/fw

i’m familiar with k’s from debating them. i have no ideological preferences but prefer jargon/theory to be well-explained. i have a high standard for 2ac against one off k and think the best 2acs use fewer cards.

i want to vote for a stable alternative whose solvency is uncontested or well-defended.

affs should get to weigh the aff and role of the ballot debates are often an excuse to not explain your warrants. i think fw against a 1 off k debate can make or break the aff.

k affs – these should be in the direction of the resolution, but i don’t think that the neg should have to debate against your personal experiences or that debate is a survival strategy. i want to know what voting for your advocacy does.

fw/t-usfg – i think debate is a game and procedural fairness is an independent impact. that being said, if you can prove procedural fairness is a bad model, go for it. i think tva’s are the most strategic way to win t.

theory

i think condo is good. i probably won’t vote on theory but can be convinced otherwise. i don’t think many cps are abusive enough to drop the team, but can be persuaded on drop the argument.

unionville ’19 | cornell ’23 (not debating)

4 years policy debate as a 2n

email: unionvillekl@gmail.com

policy:

i am a new judge, but i will try to ensure a fair and thoughtful decision based on a careful flow. the best debates have well-researched clash, in-depth explanations, and many argument comparisons. please be considerate of everyone in the room. if there are any ways i can make the debate more accessible for you, please let me know.

*tldr*

• tech > truth
• as a debater, i am most experienced in the policy side but have gone for arguments across the spectrum. i ran mostly soft-left and occasionally big stick affs and went for da/cp/t about 70% of the time and a k 30% of the time vs. policy affs.
• i went for t-usfg with a procedural fairness impact in 95% of my 2nrs vs. k/no plan affs. the other 5% were case turns.
• types of rounds i am experienced in (from most to least): policy v. policy, policy v. k, k v. k (no experience)
• i will call clear 2x; after that, i will just flow what i can. i think it is a reasonable expectation to be able to understand every word, even the warrants of the card.
• evidence quality undoubtedly matters — spin will at best be a lens through which i will view the contested evidence.
• any flavor of “debate bad” arguments will be an uphill battle to win.
• i will not evaluate arguments about actions that occurred outside of the round.
• i have no topic knowledge, so providing more explanation on particularly complex internal link chains or nuanced counterplans would be appreciated.

*specific*

do what you do best. my predispositions can be overcome by quality debating.

t-usfg/fw —

• i heavily lean negative because i believe debate is a game (that does not shape subjectivity) with strategic value and not having a limited topic and predictable stasis point cancels the opportunity for clash and productive debate.
• fairness (because preserving equitable competition is necessary to actualize any benefits of debate) > clash > dialogue > other neg impacts (“decision making,” “debate skills”)
• tvas do not need to solve the aff and prove that the aff could access similar content and literature base with a resolutional tie.
• tvas must meet the neg’s interp.

k affs —

• neg presumption ballots are very appealing in these debates since i just do not think these affs do anything. the aff needs to have clear impact calculus.
• there must be judge instruction: what am i voting for? why is that thing good?
• if the aff forgoes defending the topic, there should be a substantive critique of the resolutional mechanism.

ks —

• i am most familiar with capitalism, neoliberalism, settler colonialism, and discourse (i.e. security, victimization) kritiks.
• because of my policy background, i am predisposed to think: material resolution of conditions and violence is good, extinction is bad, and fiat is good.
• i have a high threshold for explanation, especially for race and high theory based kritiks (i have only ever debated against these).
• explicit line-by-line >>> overview that implicitly answers arguments (i will not make cross applications without instruction)
• on the fw debate, affs will always get to weigh their aff.
• sectioning the kritik in the neg block and doing line-by-line within each section (i.e. the fw debate, the perm debate, the link debate, the alt debate, etc.) creates a much cleaner flow.
• generic links (i.e. state bad) are unpersuasive especially if the aff makes link distinctions, which also makes voting for the perm much easier.
• if the alt is kicked, there must be explicit explanation on how the status quo resolves the links to the plan.
• if there is not case debate while going for the k, there will likely be an aff ballot.

topicality —

• since t is about competing visions of the topic, a clear picture of the topic with details about how debates and research occur and specific case lists under each definition are essential.
• describe and compare the contours of debate under not only the neg’s interp but also the aff’s interp, and explain why those differences matter.
• i default to competing interpretations.
• reasonability is an argument about why your definition is reasonably predictable, not why it is just “good enough.”

das —

• make “turns case” and outweighs analyses contextualized to the aff’s specific impacts.
• there must be a high risk of the da for me to vote on the “turns case” arguments, so disproving the framing flow would still be beneficial.
• the more contrived the internal link scenario the higher the burden of explanation and carded evidence will be for the neg.

cp —

• slow down on the cp text.
• i would prefer having a carded solvency advocate.
• sufficiency framing is at best a reason why the solvency deficits should be weighed slightly less — i would much prefer that the neg just do the solvency debate.
• evidence that compares the cp to the plan makes the cp probably legitimate.
• cps that solely compete on immediacy and certainty are questionable and will be difficult to win.

theory —

• slow down on analytics and warrant arguments.
• there must be detailed explanation of the world of debate under each model and the impacts of defaulting to each interp.
• most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.
• i rarely ran more than 3 conditional advocacies in neg rounds but if more than that is present in the neg strat 1) i am more sympathetic towards the aff 2) the neg should be very prepared to defend their multiple strategies.
• if theory is dropped, the opposing team must extend it throughout the debate for it to be voted on.

public forum:

i have never competed in this event and my only experience has been in the background research and progressive strategies components. i am not familiar with most pf norms, so most of my reasoning will default to policy norms.

• my flow will dictate the winner and loser.
• arguments should be answered in the same order they are presented.
• an argument must be in the previous speech for it to be extended (except for first rebuttal).
• 2nd rebuttal should answer the speech preceding it and extend their own case.
• arguments with evidence to back up claims will almost always have more weight than smart analytics.
• i strongly oppose paraphrasing (but understand the utility of it in short time constraints). if paraphrased evidence is disputed, i will evaluate the evidence from my own perspective (i will not consider evidence spin). if the evidence is misconstrued, i will treat it as if it has not been read in round and strike it from my flow.
• i am familiar with theory and kritiks (look above for preferences) and am open to hearing them. however, i do not see the strategic value in going for a kritik in this event because the level and depth of explanations and argument comparisons required to run a kritik well far exceeds the time limits of pf speeches.

LD is supposed to be debate before a lay audience and presume I am a lay person. Construct a cohesive presentation and deliver at a speed and choice of words a lay person will comprehend. My eyes and ears tend to glaze when I hear too much debate jargon. Contextualize and rank your contentions clearly articulating the value. Your contentions should be credible and pass a smell test and I tend to discount projections that have a quantum probability. I have a physics/math background and tend to look at questions for a lens of 'Is this a useful question to ask'. Treat your opponents with respect.

h

- I debated for four years at Unionville High school and competed at some national circuit tournaments, but was largely a traditional debater. I'm not really against circuit style debate, but I probably won't be able to evaluate it as well as you would like.

- I am tech over truth and only judge arguments that are made in the round. I will consider any dropped arguments as true for the round.

- I don't flow cross-ex, but I do pay attention. If you get your opponent to concede something important during cross and then bring it up in a later speech, I will evaluate it.

- I'm not the best with speed, but if you have to spread flash me the doc and I'll try my best to keep up. Once again, I'm not the best with speed, so I will most likely not be able to evaluate the debate as well as you would like if you do decide to spread.

- If you have any specific questions feel free to ask.

"Debated 4 years of Public Forum in high school, current Penn Freshman, keep it clean, speed is alright full spreading is not, don't lose. Good luck. "

Did PF for 4 years at Unionville, overall I'm a pretty normal flow judge

- spreading/theory: no thanks

- tech: over truth but it's easier for me to buy arguments that are more grounded (the more out there your argument is there more warranting you should have)

- final focus: all offense should've been in summary

- evidence: don't lie about it

- warranting: do it

- collapsing: do it

- weighing: yes please

- be: nice

feel free to ask questions!

-- I debated policy for 4 years @Unionville. Currently a senior @Penn and haven't debated since HS, but I've stayed involved with the activity through our org PFYD which does volunteer coaching and hosts the Penn Tournament each year (I co-directed last year's)

-- We read a lot of Agamben, Security Ks on neg, but please do not assume I am familiar with your philosophers because I'm probably not and I'm really not that well-read; on aff, the only "high-magnitude" impact we read was warming, so I naturally have a high threshold for low-probability impacts

-- That being said, tech > truth (mostly), unless your arguments make the round un-inclusive to others. I'd prefer a debate about the topic, but I believe the debate is for the debaters.

-- In my debate experience, I disliked most theory args, but I'll again defer to the above point

-- Big fan of really well-articulated, well-warranted impact d (think it's really underrated)

-- feel free to send any questions: nickyang@sas.upenn.edu

-- also, if you're going to be spreading, then I'd like to be on the email chain (use ^ email)

@Penn tournament: This will be my first time judging virtually so bear with me

@LD for Penn tournament: I'm familiar with traditional LD format. Just because I did policy doesn't mean I auto vote for you if you do policy-style in LD.

current as of 2/11/2021