GSA Camp Tournament Session 4

2019 — Fremont, CA/US

Oishika Barat Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kaine Cherry Paradigm

8 rounds


Feel free to debate how ever you want to, just make it interesting although i specialized with critical scholarship I am familiar with the fundamentals of debate across styles . Don’t call me judge,

Speaking: General Clarity over speed paradigm that most people have, It's a good determinate of speaker points and important for effective communication.When you make an argument clearly I'm more likely to follow its development and depending on the how the round goes works well for you. Versus If i miss and important argument and it costs you the round and then you ask "what about x argument " then people are sad.

Style: Is also very important and i think that can become lost in debate rounds, although some people shoot arguments as if they are a machine they still have personalities that I believe should be shown in a debate round. If you are funny, show it, if you can "make asshole work" more power to you, if you are a geek I'll probably get your references, and so on. Style is not mandatory and should come naturally, but if shown will definitely improve your speaker points.

Cross-X: Can be a very useful tool and can be both a fun and entertaining experience for me as a judge and a place for people to express some aspects of "style". Cross-X belongs to the person asking questions, so if it seems like someone isn't asking a question let them ramble it really isn't your concern. Of course there is a threshold that will become really clear, in that i'll probably stop paying attention and start finding something else interesting to pay attention to.

Evidence: Pieces of evidence are like a bullets to a gun. They can be devastating only when aimed properly, I think evidence is a tool to support your arguments and the way you articulate them. So if you extend evidence with little to no explanation to how it functions you are shooting blanks that can probably be easily refuted, evidence comparison is also really important in this regard as it allows you to control the framing of the debate which leads us into. . .

Macro-level issues and Framing: I think these are very important in both debate as they ultimately determine how i look at the flow(s) and situate who is controlling the direction of the debate. So if someone has an overview that contains an impact calculus,framework, "politics" or frontloads an argument on the flow and it doesn't get answered either directly or somewhere else on the flow then it becomes damming to the other team. This is even more essential in the last two speeches that ultimately determine how i should look at the round. Good framing also should happen on the line-by line as well and will also help me write the ballot.

Theory: I don't have a stance on theory as a stand alone argument. It's probably something that should be argued in a CLEAR and COHERENT manner, which means you probably shouldn't speed through your condo bad and agent cp blocks as if you are reading cards, I'll vote on dropped theory arguments as long as there is a clear impact to it when extended. Otherwise it should be developed throughout the debate. General question that should be resolved in theory debate for me is "What does it mean?" i.e If you say best policy option, what does that mean in terms of what a policy option is and how does it work in terms of debate.

Specific Stuff

Topicality: Its very situational depending on the violation and how the definitions are played out. I think a lot of T interpretations can be contrived especially if they are not grounded in codified law or precedent. Interpretations that come from legal academics serve to help lawyers in the event in which they feel they must argue a certain interpretation in front of a particular judge and may not nesscarly good for debate(although a certain level of spin and framing could connivence me otherwise). Topicality comes down to clash and ground, and is normally resolved by several questions for me; "Is there clash in round?" "What ground does BOTH sides have?" and "How does ground function to create educational debates?" I tend to have a very high threshold for fairness. Just because a K Aff makes a no link argument to you politics disad doesn't mean that its unfair, negative ground isn't something that is so clearly drawn out. I think there are better arguments that can be made in those situations. That being said I am very sympathetic to aft weighing their case against topicality and see k's of topicality as substantial arguments on the flow.

Just saying you are reasonability topical isn't an argument and makes their competing interpretation clams all the more legitimate. Like all things you have to make a warrant to why you are reasonably topical, may it be that you are germane to the resolution or that you still allow for alternative ways for the neg to engage the aft.

Counter Plans, PICs, and DA's: Not really a generic counterplan person, I think counterplans when researched properly and specific to the aff with a good net-benifit can become a good interesting debate that I would love to see. I don't really like silly PICs and think people can make very convincing, smart arguments about how stupid they are,but I'll still vote for them. It's question of how the counterplan competes with the aff and makes better room for theory arguments on the aff. I really don't like the politics DA and generally think the link arguments are contrived,strong attacks on the link story of the DA are very convincing and will probably help you on the CP debate.

"Perfomance": **** Just do your thing

K's: I would love seeing a good critique debate more than seeing a bad one that does surface level work. A good K debate includes specific links to the aff that go beyond " you do state action dates bad judge" or "you sed observation= ablest discourse" as it allows affs to use simple questions to make you links seem stupid and their framing arguments stronger. A strong defense of the alternative, and realistic impacts that are explained and benefit the neg. I really like K's that deal with politics and how we formulate political action and agency in relation to institutions or the State, a good framing of the alternative politics and how that politics can function through the debate round and the ballot is very exciting to me, especially with the recent events happening over in Tunisa and Egypt. Affirmatives should engage in a substantive discussion of the alternative and pin the negative down on how the alternative functions in the round. Smart questions and simplification of the alt/ K will probally allow to be more persuasive and stop the k from becoming the blob of shit it normally becomes.

Have fun!


Amine El Moznine Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Sana Jaffery Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Riya Kataria Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Anurag Koyyada Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Nathan Leal Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Nisha Nandhini Porchezhiyan Paradigm

8 rounds

I did pf in hs.

  1. I am truth > tech. Just because you have a card saying something is true but your opponents put a lot of analytical defense on it, that goes unresponded to, I will not vote on that argument.
  2. DO NOT misconstrue ANYTHING. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if the round is so close I need to look at evidence.
  3. I’m a pretty fast speaker myself, I can handle speed. That being said, don’t spread outright and if i yell clear please slow down. You going too fast for me harms your prospects of winning.
  4. If you are running untraditional pf arguments (theory, K, etc.) tell me how to evaluate it. Don’t run theory unless there is abuse because if there is no abuse, I will not vote for you.
  5. I think framework arguments are really cool and I’m fine with any framework set by either team as long as it is a) warranted very well and b) you tell me why that framework should be prioritized. Framework does not have to be in case, you can make it an overview.
  6. Long overviews of any type (framing, narrative, new argument, solvency takeouts) are completely fine in both rebuttals. Second rebuttal does not have to frontline. First summary does not have to extend defense.
  7. EVERYTHING said in FF HAS to be in summary. No exceptions.
  8. The easiest way to my ballot is weighing. Weighing should generally start in rebuttal or summary. DO NOT say “we outweigh on magnitude” without telling me HOW you outweigh.
  9. All evidence cited for the first time has to have author’s last name and date at the minimum. If it doesn’t have that, just say no author or no date.
  10. Offtime roadmaps are SO important to me, so please do that for everything but case/cross! Signpost, otherwise I won’t flow what you are saying.
  11. I don’t flow cross. I will most likely be looking at memes.
  12. Your outfit needs to match your vibe.
  13. Bring me food. I'm vegetarian and I don't like junk food. Food = automatic 30.

I’ll give high speaks to teams that I think deserve to break. My speaker points are not based on how pretty you sound, but how smart you are in round. If you are condescending in any way, I will give you a 26. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic/outright being a jerk, I will give you a 25. I like humor and sarcasm and I will give you higher speaks if you try to entertain me during cross.

I think going first is a structural disadvantage, so if the round comes too close, I will pref the first speaking team. Feel free to ask any questions before round and you can always hit me up anytime during the tournament if you have any questions about how I voted.

D'mani Thomas Paradigm

8 rounds

I have been doing policy debate for about 6 years now. Did 2 years in high school, debated for 1 semester at UC-Berkeley, and then ended up coaching for 4 years in college. I have a lot of experience with K debate, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for a T violation or a fire framework debate.

For evaluating K debates - Please make sure you contextualize your arguments into the world of the affirmative. ( my theory says this which implicates the affs ability to do x) Read whatever you want, but just make it clear why and how I should vote.

* amendment as of february 17th * : read whatever you want, but make sure you can contextualize your theory into a real world example. I'm totally down to theorize outside of current realities/ mindsets/ whatever, but if the debate becomes too theoretical

( deleuze v deleuze) or even afro pess v afro pess then i'll get lost. I'm not the judge in the back that knows everything. This becomes an issue when teams try and re read authors against folks in order to win super intricate links... which of course - only make sense if you are really deep into the literature or it gets really explained in the block. These concrete examples help me latch onto to your argument and better evaluate.

For evaluating T/Framework debates - Blippy violation extensions are intimidating and will end up on the flow, but if you don't impact them out in front of me, then I can't really do much for you when it comes time for an RFD. Predictability might make it to the end of the debate, but if you haven't done work on why the debate was hurt then why vote neg?

Policy vs K debates

These may come down to " extinction on the physical plane vs death on some sort of identity axis". If the policy aff beats the k in explaining why their framing comes first or outweighs - i'll vote aff. Please do the work of winning why yours comes first ( for either side) like how pusha T did to Drake - it just makes it really easy for me once rfd time comes.

Policy heavy debates --> you need to explain scenario stories very explicitly in rebuttals if that is your specific reason for winning. Easy way to get my ballot is to slow down for a second and break down the internal links between your argument. If you don't have a " HELLO - judge wtf" moment in your rebuttal ( especially for LD) , then these can be hard to judge debates for me.

If i'm ever giving an RFD, and stop mid sentence. Then it means I've worked through some random argument and am now changing my mind about how I feel usually. Or i'm just awkwardly re framing something. I may end up "re nigging" on my decision especially when tournament staff is being pushy/ forcing us out of rooms/ threatening folks with tournament fees if they don't submit a ballot or evacuate a space in time. So, yes to the few who I had to force out of rooms sorry. I try to hold myself and others to a high standard of theorization and sometimes that just takes longer than we have.

Ben Unanaowo Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Sanjim Uppal Paradigm

8 rounds

gonna pretend this is my goodbye debate post in case my kids ever see it:

shoutout to mvla and basis for a really fun season. i never explicitly say this, but im really grateful i met all of u and we became bffls and i'll miss traveling together and seeing everyone around. i didn't know it was possible to love a group of kids so much until this past year. literally all of you are the nicest, most genuine and hardworking people on this planet and there is no doubt in my mind that you'll go on to do awesome things. i'm glad i could be both a coach and a friend to you all. thanks for putting up with my constant lack of topic knowledge


sanjim <3

p.s. here's a special shout out to stefan boone because he has been begging me to write a goodbye post so he can be tagged in it for clout

jaylen eashmond Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted