Devansh Chauhan ParadigmLast changed 11/14 1:15P EDT
Princeton High School ’18 UChicago ’22
Conflicts: Princeton High School
Debate Clout: Competed extensively on the national LD circuit. I reached a bid round and consistently made it to elims at bid tournaments, so take that as you may into your pref calculus.
if you want a better idea of how I think about debate, see these paradigms: Matt Chen, Paras Kumar, Bob Overing, Amit Kukreja
I have a round in a bit and i have no idea how this dude evaluates stuff:
speed is cool, progressive stuff is cool, don’t make shitty/offensive args, tech > truth, explain, and entertain.
Quick Pref Sheet:
Stock stuff: 1
Stock K: 1
Friv Theory (Side bias dump debaters): 2/3
Pomo/High Theory/Dense Ks: 3
Before anything else, have fun! Debaters focus way too much on W/L records and get super stressed out but that kills the point of debate, so I’ll try to make the round as chill as possible and it would be awesome if you could do the same.
I’ll vote on anything so long as it has a warrant/impact and isn’t offensive like rape good/racism good. If someone reads those types of arguments, it is also the burden of the other person to call them out on it, and if you don’t, both of your speaks will suffer.
I’m fine with spreading, and will call clear/slow/loud as necessary, but it is your burden to make sure I can clearly understand your arguments so slow down somewhat on tags and especially author names and pause between cards so i can differentiate them
default truth testing - but that can very easily change based on the content of the debate. If the debate is a plan vs DA or something then I’ll obviously switch to comparative worlds.
Default RVIs on Theory, Competing interps, no RVIs on T, Fairness and education are voters, DTD, spirit of interp
If you are reading something prepared, I expect you to flash/email/pass pages or whatever to your opponent. i won’t count flashing/emailing as prep, but please be reasonable with it, and compiling docs definitely counts as prep time.
disclosure is good, and i won’t 100% vote someone down for not disclosing, but the theory debate pretty clearly flows in favor of disclosure. That being said, if you initiate the disclosure debate and end up losing it, I won’t be super impressed by your display of skills
please make args + weigh and extrapolate warrants instead of just reading shit off a doc, those debates are super boring and don’t show me you are skilled at all.
if you have questions after the round, then ask constructive ones and I will gladly answer. I’ll try to give suggestions of drills to do to improve after I finish my RFD as well. But if your strategy is to intimidate me by bringing in like 10 coaches and then trying to roast me, no one in the room will be happy, and at some point I’ll just ignore you because that practice is one of the most toxic parts of debate.
If you claim your opponent has miscut or is misrepresenting evidence, or has been clearly intentionally clipping (by which I mean they haven't been reading the full text of what they say they have been) I will stop the round and the round comes down to the ethics challenge. If it's an elim, I will stop flowing and call the evidence after the round. If an evidence ethics challenge is won, the debater who miscut evidence will get an Loss-20. If an evidence ethics challenge is wrong, then the debater who initiates the charge will get a Loss-20. No other argument will be evaluated.
How to get a big W
- Collapse strategically. My favorite part of debate is how it’s like a chess game, and making strategic choices/ reading strategic positions in the round will be a sure path to high speaks and a ballot
- Weigh - I can’t evaluate the debate objectively if you don’t weigh impacts, and it’s not that hard to do so.
- Have overviews/framing issues - gives me a clear vision of the round and can easily tip the ballot in your favor.
- Engage/Clash effectively with your opponent’s positions
- Explain your arguments as much as possible. You know your arguments well, but chances are I don’t know shit about it
This is by far my most experienced pillar of argumentation and my favorite.
Do impact comparison and weigh as much as possible - this is essential to do if you want to win by LARPing
Make somewhat logical arguments and analytics instead of just engaging in card war
Advantage CPs are super strategic, and some agent CPs are also strategic.
PICs are very strategic, and are theoretically fine
Condo is also fine, but is less fine as the number of conditional positions increases.
I’ll still listen to args like 1 condo bad tho.
case turns are awesome and should be a staple 1NC strategy, and solvency deficits are also necessary. More specific the better.
Impact defense is underrated, and so are impact turns. These are both great strats. Obviously don’t double turn yourself.
Default functional competition over textual competition
K vs T Framework
Either way is fine by me, I never read K affs and T was one of my favorite strategies but I can easily vote either way
Don’t read a bunch of fairness for whom/predictability bad/K outweighs T arguments or Galloway-type fairness o/w K args and call it a day. I expect you to actually answer the internal warrants of the shell/aff
Using the warrants in your specific aff as indicts to the shell + having a counterinterp based on your method is the BEST way to beat back T args, and is a path to a ballot with high speaks
TVAs are a strategic gem in these debates and should be read
DTA type args are also cool
EXPLAIN YOUR POSITIONS. K debate is getting more nuanced and complex by the day, and spewing shit about subjectivity and the mean green human machine or whatever the fuck is not going to win you a ballot. Give examples, and heavily explain the thesis of your position in the 2nr and how they link in.
I highly recommend checking out Katherine Fennell’s article on how to go for the K, and employing that strategy in front of me is the optimal way to win.
ROTBs/ROTJs have to be warranted, and compared with the opposite debater’s method. I hate when people read parametricized role of the ballots like “vote for the debater who best solves back for (only anthropocentrism) or (super specific type of literature like prison abolition)”. I believe these can be weighing arguments under a more general rotb.
Default perms are a test of competition, but am fine if the aff collapses to a perm as an advocacy.
Reps K’s are cool but depends on what exactly is being read. If someone drops their charger and curses or accidentally says the word “We”, and you gasp and start screaming about how they said the F-word or “We”, I will cringe. The closer it is to the thesis of their position the better. These are very strategic positions, but arguments such as judge choice have some truth value to them and are strategic.
Don’t go for like skep or 3 1ar shells once you hear a K. Kritiks are the positions with which I expect you to engage as much as possible.
I’m most familiar with Wilderson, Cap, Model minority, Tuck and Yang, agamben, saldana and somewhat familiar with edelman and baudrillard
These debates can be really funny and entertaining, and nuanced burden affs are very strategic.
Don’t be an asshole about this stuff. one example is avoiding CX questions. If you are going to be a trickster, you should be straight up about it.
High threshold for quality tricks tho, and I’m not the best flower so I’m not the best at evaluating these debates.
Nardin probably doesn’t take out theory
Once again, don’t dump, and collapse strategically
It’s a strategic tool, go for it. I became fond of theory in the latter end of my career. Obviously theory should be used to check abuse tho, and the truer the shell the easier to win.
My favorite speech of all time was a 2NR/2AR collapsing to T.
Having good evidence in T debates is awesome, and endorse a specific case list then just categorically saying one standard comes before the rest
Strength of Link weighing is key and will be heavily used in my evaluation of the round.
T > Theory
Justify your reasonability bright line
No RVIs off I meets.
your abuse story should be specific to your interp
I don’t think 1AR theory is categorically good or bad. These debates make me cringe, but 1ar theory hedges are strategic.
I hate side bias dumps, and think debaters exaggerate too much about it. My least favorite debater is one who clearly came to complain about side bias from the get-go and had no intention to engage even in good theory debates.
Semantic I-meets are trash but funny
Default ethical confidence but love ethical modesty so i’ll gladly go either way
I started appreciating the merits of phil debate more and more as my career went on, and these debates can be super fun.
Make multiple reasons as to why their fw fails, is bad/repugnant, and is fallacious. Line by lining fw warrants + having overviews is awesome.
Compare and weigh between frameworks. The more normatively justified the better.
TJFs are cool
Hijacks are super duper strategic, and err on the side of over explaining them. I’ll reward high speaks if you effectively use hijacks in the debate.
Impact calc is a necessity - i + your opponent need to know how to compare/weigh impacts under your standard so be super clear about that.
Syllogisms that normatively justify a fw >>>>> random unrelated blips.
A semblance of a framework is essential when affirming unless its critically based.
Using your framework’s internal warrants to make nuanced arguments against kritiks is awesome and a quick route to a ballot + high speaks.
Speaker Points (will change depending on tournament)
I’ll try to average around a 29, and these are based mostly on strategy/skill, and then conduct, and then speaking
26 - you did something super bad
27 - are inexperienced/many strategic errors
28 - 28.5 - were ok- won’t break
28.5 - 29 - average - will break/make it to early elims
29 - 29.5 - very good - will probably bid
29.5 - 30 - excellent, will make deep elims and possibly win the tourney.