Shree Awsare ParadigmLast changed 3/2 9:13A EDT
1/13/20 - Included Short Version, LD and PF Addendum added below
Current School Affiliations: NoBro (2016-), Emory (2019-)
Previous School Affiliations: JMU (2011-2016), Broad Run High School (2014-2016), Thomas Jefferson High School (2012-2014), Columbia University (2007-2011), Fordham University (2011), Monta Vista High School (2003-2007).
HS Topic Knowledge: Slightly above average. Led lab at DDI & actively cut cards for NoBro.
College Topic Knowledge: Below Average. I occasionally cut K answers and that's the extent of research. I need the topic disambiguated - topicality and complex topic mechanism-based counterplans will need more pentime and clarification.
Email Chain: email@example.com
5 min version:
Line-by-Line x-------------------------------------- "Cloud Clash"/Overviews
Truth -------------------------------------------x-------- Tech
Insert Opponent Evidence-------------------------------------------x Read Evidence
Must Explain Cards ---------x------------------------------ Will Read Into Evidence
Judge Kick ----------------------x------------------------ Stuck w/ choice
Read Topical Affs ---------x-------------------------------- Free for All
Counter-Interpret Words -x------------------------------------ CI: "Discussion of Topic"
Aff Defends Model of Debate -x-------------------------------- T Impact Turns/RVI only
Limits/Fairness ------x-------------------------------------------- Skills/Other
No Ks on Neg -----------------------------------------x--- Yes Ks on Neg
Arguments about 1AC x------------------------------------ Personal Attacks
Cheaty CPs Good ------------------------x-------------------------- Aff Always Wins Theory/PDCP
Always a Risk -------------------------x----------- Zero Risk/Presumption
2010 Speaker Points -----x------------------------------------- 2020 Speaker Points
No judge is tabula rasa, and I am no exception. My ideal debate involves two teams who read well-researched positions, engage in line-by-line refutation of their opponents’ arguments, and demonstrate strategic choice-making and vertical development of arguments. Not all debate is good debate. It is my firm belief that any model of debate (whatever the content) that disincentivizes any of the aforementioned qualities is an inferior product that is simultaneously less rigorous and less enjoyable. In the past, I have taken a more laissez-faire attitude towards judging rounds, but I’ve started to realize that I have been rewarding practices conducted by debaters on both sides of the artificial “traditional” and “critical” divide that are detrimental to the overall quality of debates – antics of which I was often guilty of pursuing as a competitor. As such, I will be making my biases transparent so that you can be more informed when you do your prefs. I’ve split this philosophy up into non-negotiables and preferences below.
(1) Only complete arguments will be evaluated. A complete argument consists of a claim, warrant, and data. This seems basic, but in the rush to construct 7+ off, scattershot 1NCs, some teams been encouraged to forward DA shells with poorly highlighted evidence without warrants, CP shells with just a text and no accompanying solvency cards, or cards tagged “extinction” (which is a word, not an argument) in hopes that they will get more words per minute out than the other team. You can miss me with that. Incomplete arguments will not be flowed, and in the event that an incomplete argument grows up to be a complete argument in a future speech, I will evaluate it as if you made the argument for the first time in that future speech, and I will give your opponents a new opportunity to respond with analytics and cards.
(2) You MUST be flowable. While I will try my best to keep up, I will feel zero remorse in the post-round if you tell me that I did not appropriately decode the word vomit on 2AC 5 subpoint C or the treatise you regurgitated about some vague "theory of power" in a 2NC overview. Not only should you limit your speed such that you maintain clarity at all times, but it would help me immensely if you used consistent, easily transcribable soundbytes so I can make connections on the flow effortlessly instead of speaking in large paragraphs with run-on sentences.
(3) Topicality is a voting issue, and never a reverse voting issue. The affirmative must defend the whole resolution or an example of the resolution. Nothing about this requirement is “the logic of genocide,” “psychologically violent,” nor a “will to mastery” that can be analogized to violence in “Abu Ghraib” or “drone strikes.” Ultimately, debate is a voluntary activity that you have the choice to not partake in, and to the extent that you've chosen to participate, it is only valuable insofar as the negative has an opportunity to anticipate and clash with your claims. That being said, I believe that critical affirmative approaches to the topic that may stray from traditional plan texts have immense value, but only if they creatively affirm the resolution in some way rather than being a negative argument or atopical. Here are some thoughts if you have me in the back of a K Aff v T debate.
(A) 2ACs should counter-define or prove they meet the words in the resolution to prove that the 1AC as presented is an example of the resolution, or they will have an extremely uphill battle in the face of a competently extended fairness violation. I am not persuaded by vacuous CIs like “discussion of the topic,” “only our aff is topical,” and others that are unsubstantiated by evidence interpreting words in the topic statement. None of those CIs would be acceptable in any other T debate (imagine if a human rights conditions afff responded to T – Reduce = No Conditions with CI: discussion of the topic – L 27.5). That being said, I don’t think this forecloses critical approaches beyond traditional interpretations of fiat – I think there are plenty of ways to creatively define “USFG” as an agent outside the 3 branches in DC (see Burch’s Performative Revolutionary Fiat or “we demand” style affs) or “direct commercial sales” as exceeding AECA context that could posit a broader but more inclusive limit on the topic. 2ACs can also make criticisms of expert based definitions, suggesting alternate, non-traditional definitions that are grounded in lived experience or social location, and make the case for why their definitions should be preferred. But, no definition at all = no model of debate, which implies that there is no equitable role for the negative team to anticipate their opponents' arguments and critically engage their scholarship
(B) The "impact" debate should be focused on a particular set of limits – the negative should defend the benefits of narrowing deliberation over a topic, and the affirmative should point out the myopia of such a curriculum. I think there is a defensible case to be made that a curriculum where the affirmative is limited to the 3 branches as an agent or a narrow subset of what “direct commercial sales” means distorts the cross-disciplinary literature over arms sales and is exclusive of particular bodies of thought which may have an impact that outweighs the convenience of negative researchers, in the same way that a definition of DCS that limits out the CCL might arguably be contrived, uneducational, and have an impact. However, impact turns that suggest the reading of topicality itself is a violent form of conditioning or that the negative should not be able to anticipate and engage your argument are significantly less convincing and don't require much to be refuted.
(C) I am annoyed by negative arguments read on the affirmative side. Positions that are pessimistic about the possibility of improving the status quo are negative arguments… by definition... and are reasons to vote for the negative team. Turns out there is a vast body of defensible literature in your area of the library that is hopeful about the propensity for change. Please be willing to research and defend more than 1 "theory of power."
(D) I am more in the "limits/fairness" camp than the "skills" camp. The latter opens the neg up arguments about why we should prefer aff impact claims that exceed the intrinsic competitive nature of debate, permutation arguments to teach different skills to different people through different genres of argument, and arguments about how the neg's skills cannot be universalized to all and can be used for evil. This is not to say that "skills" style impacts are unwinnable in front of me, but it is certainly more uphill.
(4) There are 2 speakers on each team who have an equal amount of time to speak, and I will cast a ballot in favor of one winning team. I don’t really care about ins and outs or alternative use prep time, but there should NOT be debates where students are “kicked out” or otherwise don’t participate in an entire debate. Calling for a double win, intentionally interrupting an opponent’s speech, soliciting outside participation in a speech or cross-x, breaking time limits, playing board games, or devolving the debate into a 2 hour long discussion is a recipe for a quick L for the team that initiates it.
(5) I do not feel comfortable making decisions in contest rounds about the unconfirmable personal behavior or character of minors or coaching staffs that occur outside of debates. That said, arguments about things that are observable within the debate are fair game, and I have no tolerance for racism, etc - which I think is prolific in debate despite its pretense of liberalism.
(6) Attempts to negotiate speaker points with me within a contest round (eg, "please give me a 30 because x") will backfire. The last time someone tried to negotiate speaker points, they received a 24. Would not recommend.
(1) I am not staunchly offense/defense, as I believe in the existence of terminal defense and believe presumption can decide debates. Much of this depends on the quality of debating, but I can be compelled that negligible solvency to an affirmative case should be treated as zero, or that there is no internal link to a DA, or that a K aff doesn't meet its role of the ballot and should lose on presumption.
(2) Line-By-Line > OV/Implicit Clash. My favorite debaters number arguments and reference those numbers as they debate, regardless of whether they are debating a DA, T, K or CP – but a “they say” approach that follows the arguments in the order that they are presented is also acceptable. Implicit clash would be okay if people flowed more carefully and answered arguments in the order that they were presented - oftentimes it is not. 1+ minute overviews frustrate me and said frustration will be taken out on your speaker points.
(3) Judge Instruction in DA/CP Debates = Key. Does UQ frame the link debate, or do the links frame a close UQ debate and why? Does the DA turns the case or the other way around, and why? Does the internal net benefit to a process CP outweigh the impact of a CP solvency deficit? None of these questions should be left up to me.
(4) I enjoy T and Theory Debates more than most, but you will need to slow down for your analytics and adequately impact your arguments. If you want to read new 2NC CPs to avoid impact turns, generic process CPs, etc, I'm all ears if you are proficient at debating theory and won't take it out on your speaker points.
(5) Plan (Aff) v K Debates Thoughts. These appear to be the majority of debates that I watch. For teams reading the K: My familiarity with your literature base will be above average, and I won't need long explanations of terminology to demystify concepts. I am more interested in you establishing specific links to the affirmative and concrete impacts that turn or outweigh it.
For teams debating against the K: I am more interested in arguments (analytics and cards) that substantively engage the K while having a robust defense of the case. The K's "greatest hits" are useful but at some point, you are going to have to answer their "K turns the case" and other tricks they may have by using your aff. I do not necessarily need carded evidence to overcome their characterizations, smart analytics are often enough to respond to contrived uniqueness, link, or case turn arguments. Debaters on the policy end of the spectrum that I've judged tend to say I evaluate K debates like a "checklist."
(6) I have little familiarity with economics. I understand economics at high speed even less. The last time I studied economics was AP Macro in high school, and I didn't do so well in that class. If you are committing to a strategy centered on business confidence, the economics of oil prices, etc, it would help if you slowed down and added more details about how the economy works than you might have otherwise - you probably don't want me to make guesses by reconstructing the debate from your evidence.
(7) New Affs Bad/Must Be Disclosed is not a compelling argument - I have never voted on this argument sans 1 or 2 times it was conceded by the affirmative team in 3 consecutive speeches. I think there is arguably a case to be made that new affs might justify leniency for negative conditionality or that new K affs prove debate is controlled more by competitive incentives than subject formation, but I am not as sold as some of my colleagues that new affs justify shenanigans across the board (I have no idea why a new affirmative makes process counterplans more competitive or theoretically legitimate, for example).
LD Paradigm: I respect the potential of LD as an valuable event but don't believe that potential is being reached. Some LD debates I've watched have featured impressive debaters that make complete arguments, flow, and respond to their opponents. Others deal with interesting moral inquiries from a literature base that isn’t present in policy debates which I think are productive. However, more often than not what counts as debate these days (especially "tricks debate") is disease inducing and often the round devolves to an intellectually lazy version of policy. If you would like to receive speaker points higher than a 28, you will need to do the following:
1 - Flowing and Line by line refutation is mandatory. Visibly not doing either will start you at a very generous 26. Trying to do "cloud clash" or just haphazardly reading your coach's blocks as "overviews" will get you somewhere between a 27.5-27.9.
2 - Arguments must be complete - a claim, warrant, and data. My threshold for "tricks" is high - your dropped "indexical" or "monism" or "aff never wins" theory argument will not receive my ballot or speaker points higher than 28 if you did not explain it in enough depth for me to understand it and for me to be able to explain to your opponent why they lost. That said, if you make a complete argument that is "tricky" and it is unanswered, I would not hesitate to vote for it. I was a philosophy major at an analytic philosophy focused department so these arguments aren't necessarily lost on me - that said, the versions of these arguments made in LD are often painfully bad.
3 - Both plan focused debates and K debates are fine. Theoretical objections to either are fine as well. I am open to thinking that a policy making paradigm is ill suited in LD despite policy being my primary activity, and that the nature of theoretical objections (conditionality, etc) may have different weight considering the way time limits in LD are construed.
4 - You need to extend arguments made in previous speech in their complete form. You can't just flag "they dropped the DA" and move on - you need to extend the relevant pieces of the DA for it to be evaluated.
5 - Using the terms "pre-fiat," "post-fiat," or "LARP" automatically starts you at a 28 or lower. No one roleplays, no one shows up in wigs and a gavel to roleplay as politicians. Pre-fiat and post-fiat is a vocabulary that died 2 decades ago. It's 2020. Please leave it in the past, or you will get speaker points from the past.
6 - Reading is essential. If you are reading Wilderson and can't answer the question "what does the phrase 'political ontology' mean" or are reading Kant and can't answer the question "what is the categorical imperative" it's time to pack your bags and hit the books. Embarassing CXes will receive embarassing speaker points.
7 - Personal attacks are not a winning strategy in front of me. "I know what you did last summer" "I know what you wrote on the wiki in December" "In X debate Y opponent said Z mean things to me" or worse "I know what your coaches did last summer" is neither confirmable nor a reason why your opponent did not do the better debating in this particular round. Instead, make K links to the arguments made in THIS debate to receive better speaker points and even a W.
PF Paradigm: I think there is merit to a style of debate that adapts to a less technical audience, and there is a version of this activity that is meaningful. That said, I am not a blank slate - as a policy critic, I have strong, negative feelings about some of the pedagogical choices made in the "flay" version of this activity. While there are exceptions, there seems to be an extremely low standard for responding to arguments in the order that they were presented, and an even lower standard for evidence quality (bordering on academic dishonesty). For you to receive speaker points higher than a 28, all of the following will be required:
(1) Do not paraphrase evidence. I expect that you include the full paragraph to include the context that your author is speaking in. You have not overcome the "no paraphrasing" standard if your "card" has 3 words highlighted and does not contain complete sentences. If you paraphrase evidence, I will evaluate your excerpt with the same force as an analytic or opinion asserted by a debater.
(2) Extensions of argument labels or claims without warrants will not be evaluated as arguments. "Extend the X Analysis" is not an argument. If no one manages to make a complete argument, I will intervene when making a decision. You will not like that.
(3) I expect the second rebuttal to respond to every argument in the first rebuttal. I will not be extending arguments from your grand crossfire (or crossfires in general). I steadfastly believe it is the second team's obligation to address both sides of the flow in the second rebuttal. A second team that neglects to attack both the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very low chance of winning my ballot because they have conceded large swaths of argument. A team that ignores this bit of adaptation should expect to see speaker points that reflect a performance that I see as half-complete.