Vinay Maruri ParadigmLast changed 2/15 11:33A PST
Westlake High School Austin, TX ‘16
UC Berkeley ‘20 (Economics and Data Science)
Current Conflicts: Garland HS (TX)
Past Conflicts: Westlake HS (TX), Houston Memorial HS (TX)
If you don't want to read more, you can treat me as a judge who knows different lit bases and any possible argument you could throw at me. I've been active in the community since 2013, and coaching since 2016 so I probably know what you're about to read. Just be clear and you should be good to debate however you want.
Yes I want to be on the email chain: email@example.com
If you'd like to see what rounds I've judged, how I voted, my side bias, average speak stats and what kinds of args I've been seeing click here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vs4kAHB-mdhbm7QInTPOX-Jp8KAZeO1s7WsGGX1m3fs/edit?usp=sharing
Apparently I've also been averaging a 28.9 for speaks?
EDIT (Cal 2020):
After hearing many trick debates at Stanford, I'm going to make my summarized paradigm clearer:
If you like LARPing and the K, pref me highly (1-2).
If you like going for philosophy positions, also pref me reasonably (2-3).
If you are a tricks debater, I world urge you to strike me. I really don't think debate is built to evaluate some of the bad tricks debates I heard at Stanford.
Please don't be a docbot.
Please do argument interaction for me over competing claims.
Please do weighing of offense/defense.
Please make strategic decisions in round. This means collapse the debate in the 2NR/2AR and go for paths of least resistance.
Do not blitz through analytics at full speed----slow down a little please.
EDIT (Stanford 2020):
My older thoughts on debate still hold except for theory. I default to drop the debater, but RVIS and competing interps/reasonability is an open debate. I would also prefer combo shells over multiple separate shells as I now find it hard to distinguish offense from one shell to the next. Crafty I-meets are increasingly under-utilized----you should go for them in front of me.
other theory things---side-bias arguments are a waste of time in my opinion, I will only evaluate the T/Theory debate after the 2AR unless you convincingly tell me otherwise, and I will have a high threshold to vote on frivolous theory.
I will also be unhappy if every 2NR I hear this weekend is some version of Nebel T (please use it sparingly only to check back the smallest affs).
If you want my longer thoughts on debate and specific arguments, keep reading through my older thoughts:
I will vote on anything that is non-offensive (i.e I will not vote on racism good and you'll get the lowest possible speaks).
K affs are cool and I like them. FW vs K affs is an open debate as I'm not pre-disposed to either side.
Speaks: I'll start at 28.7 and go up/down from there. If you do something problematic in round/are generally unfriendly/disrespectful or exhibit other poor behaviors I will dock speaks. Debate as a community is special and it's fueled by its members and the relations/vibes they create. Keep it that way.
Miscellaneous: If you generally have fun and have a good attitude in round, I'll also add 0.1 speaks because those were my favorite kind of rounds in HS and not taking everything so seriously is generally a good way of life.
My thoughts on specific arguments:
1) LARP: I enjoy LARP and it is a large part of what my debaters read. Big stick advantages, DA's, even the most technical counterplan/plan debates are right up my alley.
2) K: I also enjoy K's as well. This was a large part of what I read in HS. I am familiar with a wide variety of arguments, and consider myself well versed in everything from high theory to identity politics literature. My students in the past have read everything from tuck and yang to lacan to anti-blackness to anthro and more. In HS I even read Heidigger on top of that (although now in hindsight I think he's a Nazi). I am also very well versed in anti-capitalist literature, but from an economists' perspective. Do with this information what you will.
3) Skep: I will vote on this. It sort of makes sense to me after 3+ years at UC Berkeley. (insert suffering meme)
4) Philosophy heavy positions: I treat philosophy as something fun to read and listen to lectures about, but hard to understand. The densest author in this area I understood was Kant. Do with this information what you will.
5) Truth-Testing args (Rodl ought NC, util = permissibility, etc.): Not my favorite because I don't think they are designed to engage the aff or the topic. I also tend to think that they are bastardizations of the literature they come from if they are carded.
6) T/Theory: The biggest mistake I've seen in Theory/T debates is a lack of weighing or argument comparison. Most theory debates I find are full of muck that is hard to sift through as a judge because there's little interaction between what the aff/neg are saying. I lean neg on most CP theory issues, and more than 2 condo is my brightline for condo bad. I will find it very hard to vote on one or two condo bad. Spirit of the interp is a good idea, positively/negatively worded interps is nonsense [just read an interp], 1AR theory is legit, and 2AR/2NR metatheory is probably not legit. Your job as a debater if you want to go for theory/T in front of me is to keep the debate clean and make me do as little work as possible if you want to have higher chances of me voting for you on this.
7) Anything else: Just debate it out if it's non-offensive.
You do you. I will vote on anything non-offensive read or argued in round. Plans, K affs, CP/DA, T, K, theory----it's all fine by me. I will probably be willing to vote on T more often than a normal judge. However, the last policy topic I was involved with was Education (17-18). Keep this in mind as I probably don't know the topic all that well.