Tabula rasa

Mahi Shah - (she/her) - mahishahdebate@gmail.com

Uclab ES and Uclab '24

UPenn '28

top level:

tech > truth - I will evaluate every argument that is made in the round, regardless of how much I like or dislike it. I loved going for process cps + concon + the cybernetics K, and it bothered me when I couldn't go for them in big rounds because of judges personal biases.TLDR: go for what you're good at (warming good, spark, etc.)

exception: won't vote on suicide good.

I think turns case is extremely underutilized and can win you so many debates.

I probably care about card quality less than most judges - it's important, but you have to do the work in pointing out your opponent's cards are bad. Example: If one team reads bad ev but executes/spins it really well (so that they're technically ahead) and you don't tell me that all of their analysis is spin/their ev is bad, I'm not going to do the work for you and read all the cards to conclude their ev is bad and yours is better.

im fine with inserting rehighlightings.

will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. be a good human being.

T (policy):

was never my bread and butter, but i like T debates.

internal link work matters a lot---what does your interp include and exclude and why is that good for limits (neg) or predictability/aff ground (aff)

competing interps > reasonability

not the best for PTIV, just because I haven't thought about it enough--- obv will vote on it, but do a lot of explanation if you're going for it.

K-affs vs Framework:

i had the most fun in these debates. yes i was always the one going for T, but I've thought a lot about both sides.

for the neg: fairness and clash are both impacts- i went for fairness because i thought it was easier to articulate, but im fine with either.

if going for fairness: contextualize no subject formation args---don't just say "family, friends, school, etc"--- i think doubling down/we all read contradictory arguments are better args to prove no s/f.

SSD > TVA

for the aff: impact turns to fw >>> counterinterps---most of the time you're going to be losing the limits debate.

K:

familiar with the most common K's: cap, set col, afropess, cybernetics, death, security- but obviously didn't go for all of these, so would appreciate more explanation.

not familiar with high theory at all, so if you're going for it, put a lot of depth into explaining your links.

fine with framework K's or K's that rely on link turns case + the alt.

CPs:

i like them: process cps, advantage cps, agent cps, etc

probably better for cps only having to be functionally competitive than most.

solvency deficits should have an impact

fine for the both the intrinsic perm and PDCP

condo is probably good, but i can be convinced otherwise. i don't think its cowardice to go for condo- if you know you're getting smoked in the debate, take the chance.

lean neg on all other theory, unless dropped/badly answered.

Disads:

i like them; don't have a ton of thoughts.

make sure your links to the aff are good.

aff teams: sometimes disads are so bad and can be beaten on analytics + rehighlights

for fun:

+0.1 speaks for open sourcing after the round and telling me

+0.1 speaks for making fun of Aaron or Cyrus (my old debate partners)

I generally judge middle school policy, if you aren't that ignore everything here.

I usually prefer tabula rasa (latin for blank slate), as a judging philosophy, your job is to convince me, and I can be convinced on pretty much anything. That said, there is one thing on which I refuse to budge, and that is T.

At the middle school level, the T arguments just don't make sense. The claim is that the aff is running a case the neg should not be expected to prep for, but in a core files league you know exactly which cases you could face, and thus this argument doesn't make sense. If someone does run T against you in front of me, all you need to do is say this argument and I will completely ignore T. So, don't run T in front of me.

Any other argument is completely fair game and as long as you prove it, I will be convinced.

I will always judge-kick the cp for novices, but if you aren't a novice you need to tell me to. If you don't know what judge-kicking is, please look it up or ask your coach about it.

For framing, I will default to util if debaters mention nothing, but if the debaters convince me on something else I will use that. Again, if you don't know what that means please ask for coach

The only other thing is that you don't need to take prep just to look for files, I know some judges require that but I don't. If you just need 30-45 seconds before your speech you can take that off the clock. I will start prep after this though, so please don't try to abuse it.

Finally, you can always finish your sentence, so don't bother asking and just keep talking (I will stop the timer)