He/him/his

West High School '20 (Salt Lake City)

Emory '24

Add me to the email chain --- ramisbanuri@gmail.com.

Basic Stuff

Nothing in this paradigm is set in stone and will be flipped by the quality of debating, so do what you're best at. That being said, I won't vote for arguments that I don't understand.

Judge instruction matters --- Be sure to be answering the "so what's" and make "even-if" statement in rebuttals.

I have no topic knowledge, so explaining your stuff, acronyms, etc will benefit you.

Please name the email chain something coherent --- It won't boost speaks but I'll like you more.

Be nice to each other --- Occasional assertiveness is obviously fine, but excessive call-outs, interruptions, etc. will lower your speaks.

e-Debate

Slow down and emphasize --- You are not as clear as you think you are. At the least, don't start your speech at 100% speed.

If my camera is off, I'm probably not at my computer and you should wait.

Topicality

Again, no topic knowledge, so my threshold for explanations is naturally going to be a bit higher.

Winning requires good evidence and a lot of it. If you are going for an artificial interp with bad evidence, I'll likely be on the side of predictability, no matter how bad the aff explodes limits.

Competing interps > reasonability.

Aff teams should go for/explain reasonability as offensive, not just "good is good enough."

Counterplans

I'm pretty neg leaning on most theory issues omitting consult and word PICs.

I will only judge kick if the 2NR says so. 1AR's should pre-empt this.

I'm ok with analytical counterplans if it's logical and defensible, not the no-card Con Con CP.

Not sure who needs to hear this... but explaining perm do both with only those words is not an argument. I will have a very high threshold for any 1AR spins, and the neg will get full leeway in answering.

2A's should make more smart and well-articulated perms, which includes making perm text's when necessary.

Disads

Turns/solves case is a lethal argument (especially carded), but it's often done poorly. Don't fabricate turns case arguments if they don't exist.

0% risk is a thing, but it's also a thing for the aff so who cares.

Internal links usually suck on most DA's. If the evidence for it is good, I'll be very happy, but if it's bad and the aff says nothing, I'll be very not happy.

I'll be noticeably annoyed if your 1NC shell is not a complete argument.

Kritiks

In-depth link debating is essential and will be rewarded --- this means specific research, re-highlighting evidence, all that good stuff. I cannot stress how important creating a clear link story is (and how the alt resolves it).

Links to: the action of the plan > knowledge production > actor > fiat.

Examples with link/alt arguments are extremely helpful and under-utilized.

You should be making turns case arguments related to how your theory of power implicates the aff, their strategy of reformism, etc. But, just like with DA's, these need to make sense, and you shouldn't half-ass them if they aren't a thing.

Overviews = Overrated, but if you have one, don't lie about the size of it.

I'll probably let them weigh the aff, but it's fair game for the neg to problematize the logic I approach that with or what that entails/looks like.

Aff teams often lose when they forget about the aff and the assumptions they've already presented.

Grouping perms = facepalm.

I'm most familiar with the common kritiks (Settler Colonialism, Anti-Blackness, Cap, and Security) and probably have a baseline understanding of most other K's. My familiarity with your literature base does not mean I'll fill in the blanks for your explanations, so breaking down your language is key.

K Affs/T-USfg

For the Aff:

Your offense should probably be in the direction of the topic, and that goes beyond reading a few cards about a theory of power and one topic link.

Arguments by analogies make me sad.

Smart counter-interps that capture parts of neg offense make me happy, but this (usually) also means counter-defining words in the resolution. It's cool if you're not doing that, as long as there is a consistent and clear model of debate articulated that is somewhat limiting and isn't a total stretch.

Aff teams should get better at answering things that aren't T and Cap, otherwise, you deserve the L.

K Affs probably shouldn't get perms but that's up to y'all ig.

For the Neg:

More neg teams should be going for other things besides T. Presumption and impact turns are heavily underutilized, especially given that most aff teams brush them off.

I'm more in the camp of procedural fairness because of how easily straight turnable advocacy skills and other impacts are, but I can easily be convinced otherwise.

Neg teams often lose when they get too block-dependent and fail to answer the nuances of the aff's arguments. An offensive argument that insinuates the state is unethical is not sufficiently answered by your 'state good' block.

Case Stuff

Great case debating on both sides will almost always guarantee higher speaks from me.

Please leave framing pages on the education topic. They are not the silver bullet that you think they are.

Random Stuff

I think one of the most important benefits of this activity is research skills, and teams often get away with reading horrible evidence. I'll reward good cards, but you shouldn't be afraid to (adequately) hype up your evidence or trash theirs.

Please provide content warnings for your speeches if they're necessary or requested. I don't understand why this is not a more common practice in this community.

Please don't ever ask "Why vote aff?"

If you break a new aff and extend condo past the block, your speaks are capped at 27.8.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask/email me before the round.

Hello!

If you're a novice please read this first: Welcome to the amazing world of debate! Seriously debate is freaking amazing, and was definitely the highlight of my time in high school. I learned how to do research, how to express opinions, and most importantly, how to see both sides of an issue (and yes nearly every issue has two legitimate sides). Honestly my biggest piece of advice coming into round is just to stay calm. Debate can be a very scary world to jump into. You'll hear weird debate jargon that no one in their right mind normally uses (Kritik, T-shell, DA- I'm going to be using some of those words below). You'll hear kids speak at ∞+1 words per minute and it will sound like a literal machine gun. And you'll see megafiles with 200 pages of arguments and wonder how anyone can have the time to make those when it took you 2 weeks just to come up with 10 pages of arguments. It can be very very easy to get overwhelmed. So my best piece of advice is just to stay calm. Have fun, enjoy the moment, enjoy the work you've put in to building a case. Understand that no one expects you to be a flawless debater, especially in your first year. I don't expect it, your coaches don't expect it, and you shouldn't expect it either. Just have fun and be willing to learn, and you'll see just how amazing debate can be.

Personal Bio:

Some quick things about me. I graduated from Woods Cross in 2020. I did debate for three years, and spent 99% of that time doing LD. I'm in college now, studying Economics. I was a fairly serious debater while in high school, and I think my judging style reflects that. Speaking of...

Judging Style (LD):

Okay now for the good stuff. One quick note: I firmly believe that you can never "win" a debate, rather all you can do is "win" over a judge. I think this applies to real life too. With that note out of the way, let's get down to business.

*For PF Debate*

I judge PF in much the same way I judge LD, with one main exception. I care far less about the value/criterion debate in PF than I do in LD, and will weight more heavily evidence and statistics rather than just moral arguments. Feel free though to ask me any questions before the round starts (this applies regardless of what event you're doing).

*For traditional debate*

Value/Criterion: This is the first thing I look at at the end of a debate. Essentially, your value/criterion is going to tell me how I should view the round. You do not need a value/criterion to win me over as a judge, just make sure to explain to me why your way of thinking should be preferred to your opponent's way of thinking. The winner of the round will be the debater that most fulfills the winning value. For example, if the winning value is "Nationalism", then the winning side is going to be the one that leads to the most nationalism. Likewise, if the winning value is "Quality of Life", then the winning debater is going to be the one that proves that their side leads to a higher quality of life for all. As such, you do not need to win the value debate to win the round. You just need to show that your side fulfills your opponent's value more than their side does. If neither side defends their value/criterion, or presents one to be defended, then my default value is Quality of Life with a Criterion of Utilitarianism (i.e. whichever side improves the quality of life for the most amount of people wins the debate).

Arguments: Organization is critical. Make sure to show me how your contentions support your framework (or your opponent's framework if that's your style), how your subpoints support your contentions, and how your cards support your subpoints. Well organized arguments are much more effective, easier to flow, and are going to be much more compelling to me as a judge. Well organized counterarguments are simply beautiful to watch. With that said, feel free to brake away from the "traditional" framework if it suits your purposes.

Impacts: This kind of goes along with arguments, but I decided to make a special section just for it because I believe it's SUPER important. Make sure to compare your impacts with your opponents, and tell me why they outweigh.

*For progressive debate*

I'll be honest, I'm much more well-versed in traditional debate than with Kritiks (K's). However, I still love hearing K's, and think the underlying theory behind them is fascinating. If you're going to run a K, or any other form of progressive debate, just make sure that you're organized (yes as you can probably tell by now I'm big into organization). I'll update this more if I start seeing more progressive debate.

Final thoughts:

1. I believe that cross-ex is entirely for the person asking questions. That means that if you ask a question, feel free to politely cut off your opponent after about a sentence or two (please don't cut them off after only two words).

2. There is a difference between attacking your opponent's arguments and attacking your opponent. Attack your opponent's arguments mercilessly. Don't attack your opponent.

3. If you have any other questions, or need me to clarify something, please don't hesitate to ask. This is your round, and I want to make sure we're all on the same page.