If you are aff and your opponent read a disad, perm it. Otherwise I will drop u

Memorize your speech. The speech kids can do it why cant you?

If you read extinction good you get 5 extra speaks

I like a good yelling theory debate

If you stutter more than 100 times in one speech, you get 10 extra speaks (i will give more than 30)

Please put me on the chain - qtcc@bu.edu

Harker 20' | BU 24'

I did LD at Harker (Go Eagles!), went for a lot of policy arguments with a little bit of K stuff. Now I study computers and philosophy at Boston University.

Biggest thing: I very rarely evaluate theory. See more thoughts below.

Rules that are set in stone

- Arguments that are blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. and clearly made in bad faith means an instant loss, 0 speaks, and an uncomfortable conversation with your coach. If it's clear the debate is being made violent the debate ends. If you have a question about an argument, ask before the round.

- if you feel uncomfortable participating in the debate (your opp. triggered you, accidentally misgendered you, etc) feel free to discretely email or talk to me if you're uncomfortable making it an issue in the debate and we'll all work to make the debate a more productive space

- If your opponent is speaking too quickly or unclearly for you to flow, you have a right to call clear.

- I won't flow arguments made after the timer ends.

-I'll evaluate evidence ethics and other cheating challenges per tournament rules.

General

I don't think judging from a tabla rasa perspective is either possible nor desirable. The way I make determinations about what is true and false, in the real world and in debate, comes from a Bayesian perspective where I have shifting confidence in the truth of things given my knowledge and exposure to them. Generally, overcoming these priors requires presenting evidence to the contrary proportional to how far away from my current position, and my confidence in that position is. I find that this makes me a bit of an evidence hack in the sense that I frequently look at evidence presented even when not asked to to assess how strongly my priors should be shifted vis a vis a given argument.

Examples:

I have a high certainty that the Pyramids of Giza are in Egypt. To win that they are actually in China would require outrageously strong argumentation or evidence because it is a position very far outside my belief.

I have low confidence that act utilitarianism is true. To win that Kantian ethics or Hobbesian ethics are correct would only require a minimum viable argument to the contrary.

I have a moderate amount of confidence that there is alien life somewhere in the universe. Winning that they are in our galaxy/sort of nearby would require some evidence, but would not be challenging because it is close to my existing beliefs. Winning the government is concealing terrestrial-alien contact would require a great deal of very strong evidence. Winning there are Alien shape-shifters walking on Earth among us would be virtually impossible.

The rest of my paradigm is an attempt to outline the prior beliefs I have most relevant to debate and what I find compelling (and not) to overcoming them. Broadly, I find my beliefs are pretty aligned with common sense, but I intentionally shoot for epistemic humility (I have low confidence about things I am not an expert in) so it is very unlikely I will totally zap an argument you have evidence for because I vaguely thought it might be incorrect.

About argumentation/debate things: Arguments that are dropped are given a "full weight" of access to change my priors, but not all arguments pass the threshold needed to do that. Saying "The Pyramids of Giza are in Colombia because I think I read it in a book once" is an argument, but does not swing my prior much so if the other side drops it that does not automatically mean I think the Pyramids are in Colombia. My beliefs are changed more aggressively by a] arguments that are explained in-depth and b] by arguments that cite highly qualified authors working closely in the field in which you are arguing.

About the Kritik: I have a moderate amount of confidence that the world is too complex to be totally explained by one social or political philosophy. I have a small amount of confidence in the idea that debate should soley be about the desirability of the plan. I have high confidence that the plan and Aff should be counted at least somewhat in my determination of the resolutional question. I think psychoanalysis is pretty silly. I am highly confident that reading framework/topicality is not violent. Generally, I find it to be the onus of Affirmatives reading explicitly non-topical affirmatives to explain in great detail why I should vote Aff beyond the Aff just being true.

Topicality

I have a moderate amount of confidence that evaluating the plan text in a vacuum is the best way to determine if the plan is topical, and arguments that attempt to argue a thing the plan's solvency claims they do is not in the resolution are better made as solvency arguments. I require a relatively high degree of certainty that the Negative is correct before I will vote on topicality. I usually need definitions that define the words in the resolution, and clearly and strongly exclude the Affirmative, to feel comfortable voting Neg on T. I have a moderate amount of confidence that predictability is more important than "pragmatic" concerns like limits, ground, etc.

Theory

- I have very strong opinions about theory that you cannot change my mind about (you can think of these as "unchangable priors") I have and will give decisions that where I throw out a theory argument most people are fine with. Generally, if you find yourself wanting to go for theory against a counterplan (process cps bad, delay cps bad, etc.) you are better off winning they do not compete somehow.

- T starts as drop the debater, but never an RVI, theory is always drop the argument, and never an RVI. Exception is disclosure theory, which is drop the debater.

- Arguments I will evaluate: non-resolutional actor fiat (like I-Fiat or States), disclosure unless there has clearly been no good faith attempt to get it. Unlikely I vote on stuff like "must have complete round reports" or whatever, but if their disclosure practices are truly terrible and you can explain why this is probably ok. Misdisclosure/intentional trickery in particular is easy to win if you can prove it. Topicality arguments that define words in the resolution, judge kick.

- Arguments I will never evaluate: Any non-resolutional theory argument not listed above. This includes: "object fiat", solvency advocates, PICS bad, conditionality, no neg fiat, new affs bad, any form of spec argument without a card supporting it. I literally do not flow these, and will say as such as part of my RFD. Do not bother making them.

Miscellaneous

- Regarding re-highlighting - to point out flaws in evidence inserting is fine, to make an offensive argument read it.

updated nov 2023 for gbx

I have been out of debate (washed/retired) for almost 2 years

this means

1) start your speeches SLOW so i can actually hear them

2) if i dont catch/minunderstand anything because its unclear/makes no sense to me, its your fault

---

yes email chain : arnavdani@gmail.com

Harker 2022

Debated in LD for 5 years

favorite argument I ever read: T/FW vs K aff

policy:

(Case/DA/CP) > T/Theory >> Phil/Tricks > K

99% of my debates have been here - take that as you will

logical argument > unexplained claims, i love some W logic

i also enjoy creative impact turns, examples i have gone for: co2 ag, renewables bad, heg, spark, decol bad->loose nukes

t/theory:

i have had some fun theory debates, some with arguments worth hearing, some not

defaults: NO RVIS, reasonability (debate it out tho)

will be a lot harder to convince me to vote on an rvi

ks:

if it doesn't look like I understand what's going on its because I don't

lbl in the 2nr>>> the big overview

answer this question pls (or question its answer as aff): "lowkey what does the alt do?"

phil/tricks:

i have zero debate experience here - mostly avoided it all my life

surprise me

random:

refer to ayan nath's and anshul reddy's paradigm for some other cool insights ab debate i agree with

I know a lot about the topic and since I have been judging for the past almost two years, I do flow properly. Also, I believe that during cross-ex is when each side reveals their weaknesses and how well they have an understanding of the topic. So, I do closely look at cross fire.

Also, be nice and respectful to your opponents if you want high speaks from me.

In your summary, there can be new evidence but not any new arguments. In your final focus, there should not be any new arguments nor any new evidence.

Lastly, have fun!!

Policy
Be sure to add me to the email chain: beerud@gmail.com
Affirmative - Have a good impact calc but don't always have the same impact of nuclear war, nuclear war, extinction, nuclear war because when judging I'll probably have some skepticism around there. Make sure you clearly know your aff so you don't get stumped by "what does your ___ evidence say" it's one thing to ask bad questions, it's another thing to answer bad questions badly.
K Affs - Only go for it if you know what you're doing - I hate it when you poorly execute a K, so be sure to properly know the advocacy and what it entails. I'd be glad to judge performance affs but make sure you know what you're doing.
FW versus K Affs - If you go against a K aff be sure to do this, framework should be your go to argument against any K-affs. Some of the best policy debates were super contextualized framework args against kritikal teams with flushed out impact arguments.
Topicality - I wouldn't exactly advise you going for T in the 2nr but if that's your thing, go for it. Don't just spit out interns and counterinterps at each other without knowing what you're doing. Make it extremely clear why the plan is bad for debate.
Ks - I definitely like k args, so I'm down to vote for a k. This doesn't mean I'm just going to vote for a team that proposes to read a k in front of me. Although I will vote for generic links that are nearly dropped by the other team, I will reward you if your link is specific to the aff. Make your decisions at your own risk when it comes to the 2nr. It is also especially important to have multiple framing arguments and perm arguments (if necessary). In order to get my vote, I need to have a clear understanding of the alt and what it does for us.
DA/CP - The more specific they are to the aff the easier it is for me to vote for them. I'm not exactly a fan of a politics DA, but if that's your thing, go for it. The link for the DA and the solvency/net benefits for the CP will be important, so make sure you take that into consideration.

PF
Speed - When it comes to Pofo I'm not exactly a fan of speed. If you still choose to speak fast, make sure you are clear and not just blurting out arguments. If that's the case, I'm not inclined to vote for you.
Extension Args - Be clear as to what specific cards/arguments you want me to extend in the Summary/FF. Make sure you signpost before your speech so I know where you are at any given time in the speech. I prefer logical warrants over cards, so make sure you don't say "I have a card so it's true" because then you won't exactly get my vote.
Evidence - I might call for evidence after the round is over if necessary. Make sure you present evidence when asked to and not to refuse. DO NOT PARAPHRASE ANY NEW CARDS OR YOU WILL BE IMMEDIATELY D/Qed. Don't make me vote for the opposing team just because you want to save time.
Case Specifics - Don't pile card after card on me without any logical reason why to prefer that card. Don't have seven different contentions of thirty seconds each because it'll get all messy on the flow. Make sure to tell me why your impact outweighs theirs and do a decent impact calc. Don't drop impact.
Framework - Be sure to provide a framework for me and stick with it till the FF telling me why to vote for your framework and why you win on that framework. Don't argue each other's framework if you're using the same one. I once judged a round in which one team was proposing util and the other was proposing CBA and they KEPT ARGUING WHY TO PREFER THEIR FW. Don't do that. If neither teams propose a framework I'll go default to CBA.
Crossfire - Don't be too rude in cross - it's okay to a certain extent but don't be talking forever and ever to the extent where your opponent has to ask you to stop. I won't flow useless arguments in cross, but I will flow concessions or cross arguments brought up in later speeches.

Congress - Many of my rules for presentation and content still apply here. Keep your speeches within the alloted time and don't ignore the PO when they're gaveling you down. I reward debaters who advance debate rather than merely reiterating previously discussed points. If you speak late in cycle, either do the most to bring up unique points, respond to previous speakers, or do a summary/crystallization speech on the major voters in the round. Critiquing loopholes in a bill or the way a resolution is written will win extra points from me. Same goes for amendments, provided they're germaine and substantive. Keep your questions tactful and strategic- I know what softballs and gotchas look like. As in PF, don't be rude in cross-ex.

Otherwise, be sure to have fun and have a great time debating.

.