add me to the email chain: sohumkrishndebate@gmail.com

SLC West '28

Code: West High School SLC AK

Here's my wiki

speaks are capped at 25 if you send out a PDF or Google Doc

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All my thoughts about debate are sufficiently outlined in Luka Mishchenko's paradigm.

"good analytical debating beats hella cards" - someone

ARGUMENT SPECIFICATIONS:

Anything goes as long as it's not:

Counterplans, DAs, Topicality, Ks, case turns or answers, impact D, Framework, any sort of confirmation of the resolution, any advantage, inherency, framing, or solvency.

General guidelines:

I only allow 10 second speeches and they must pertain of only incohesive noises. If you absolutely MUST speak a language, it has to be Nadian, my made up one. Otherwise, no cohesive speaking, much less arguments, is allowed. I'm fine with spreading as long as it's at least 420 wpm

IMPORTANT VOTING ISSUES (I WILL STOP THE ROUND IMMEDIATELY IF YOU DO ANY OF THESE THINGS)

Asking questions during CX

Not being on mute during speeches (online)

Having any sort of speech prepared

Coming into the debate with any knowledge of what you're talking about

Not saying "um" at least 70 times per speech

Telling me "judge kick"- this isn't karate

Asking whether my paradigm is serious or not (This applies to all judges mentioning my paradigm as one they respect)

If you say EEBABA at the end of your 2nr/2ar, you get +0.5 speaks.

///REAL PARADIGM///:

I'm Nate (he/him)

nateshapiro68@gmail.com add me to the email chain

West High '26

5 years of policy, been on the nat circuit

Top Level

Tech>>Truth

Clarity > Speed

Judge intervention only happens when neither the 2NR or 2AR resolve an argument, or when the argument is discriminatory (racist, sexist, etc.) , which i wont vote for

If the argument is bad, then beat it

the rules of debate are debatable

no baudy no ballot

i'm a young debater. dropped aspec is a dropped ballot.
K-AFF

I'm down for kaffs- recognize that I'm kind of dumb when it comes to the kaff tho- if you can win a framework and framing argument and prove that your aff is key to solve your offense, I'll probably vote for you.

Seiji Aoki once said that people do too much mental gymnastics about fairness to determine what it is- I will default it to being an internal link, and a terminal impact if there is good extrapolation

at the end of the day, kaffs are cheating- show me why your cheating is based

Framework

Neg's best friend vs kaffs

Nothing much to say here

TVA should be warranted

K

Good for the K,

Framework- I default to assuming the moral assumptions of the aff are violent if there is no framework counter interp. I can be convinced to weigh or not weigh the aff

Generic links are fine- the point of specific links is to make it harder for the aff to escape the K, and to make the K debate cleaner- show me how some component of the aff facilitates [insert theory of power].

links of ommission (lose to the perm hard bc if the aff doesn't do anything ) < generic links < specific links < rehighlighting their cards

Alternatives=a way I should disinvest in the AFF- doesn't matter if they're fiated or framework-based

At the end of the day, the K should problematize the aff in some way

Kicking the alt is underrated

Lit basis I know-

Cap

Lit basis I get the idea of-

Set col, probably baudy

My lit familiarity=a more educated evaluation, not hacking or doing work for you

DA

(for novices) You need to win uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact to win on a disad. Basically, your entire story needs to be intact or none of it works. Think about it like a chain with a ball on the end. If any link breaks, the ball falls and you don't get to smack the sh*t out of the aff with it.

ptx, tradeoff, +other DAs are cool

impact calculus should probably be a lot of the 2nr

CP

I evaluate based on sufficiency framing if you win it

perms that require some level of thought and interaction should have warrants

im not voting on a cp if it has no net benefit

T

Have a counter interp

mishandle the T debate and ur done

words should be defined

T debate is very contingent on details

caselists should be warranted and robust enough

Case

Burden of proof for me is that the aff should prove that the world is net better after the aff

Impact D is fine, Analytics are also good

I wont nitpick your case page for being basic especially when the aff has a robust impact scenario- 2Ns don't sit around in a basement cutting cards all the time

I'd buy zero risk if the neg is substantially ahead on the case debate- consider it a reward for good case debating

if the aff gives me a framing issue, then zero-risk has a higher threshold to prove

Theory

I will vote for you if you are winning on the line by line that it's a voting issue- end of story

Theory is where a lot more judges are biased then there should be

line by line their theory args, and a well developed theory debate is actually not that bad

show me why ur model of debate is more based

I'm a young debater so my definition of breaking new is if you've never read the aff before- obviously if you drop disclosure theory I'll still vote neg on it

Always have a counter interp unless you very clearly meet

Speaks

<27=You're a tw00b who clipped or did something ethically wrong

27.5-27.9=You're in the 0-6 , 1-5 bracket

28-28.5=You're in the 2-4, bottom 3-3 bracket

28.5-28.9=You're a solid 3-3, bottom of 4-2,

29-29.4=Solid 4-2, 5-1, probably an octas debater

29.5-29.7=Solid 5-1, 6-0, solid quarters debater

29.7-30=Solid finals or winning the tournament

Bottom Level

+0.1 speaks if you have a lichess.org account

+0.1 speaks for every minute of prep you don't use

+0.1 speaks if you open source docs

+1 speaks if you read baudrillard and pronounce the author as "baw-dril-lard", +a further 1 speaks if you read Keeshan Sharma's "Forever War v4", that aff is very good

Sending an email isn't prep, but you shouldn't be furiously typing after saying you're sending it

I don't think I can judge callouts, the round would be too uncomfortable and it wouldn't be fun for either side

CX is your moment to show your ethos, it should be strategically used, and it's binding.

If I witnessed the disclosure process and the aff wasn't breaking new, but was adamant on not disclosing, then i will buy disclosure theory

new affs probably warrant neg terrorism

Especially at the novice level in Utah, which I have fell victim to, there is unparalleled foul play with cheating accusations- if you have to stop the round then just be careful when calling people out since there are numerous things in this activity that aren't cheating i.e. "they did x! that's against the rules!", since every tournament has different rules which I am not acquainted with. beware that k-affs are not against the rules 99% of the time

Better written paradigms I agree with- Seiji Aoki, Ishan Sharma

LD

If you have me for LD, you could probably tell i'm only a policy debater. Most of the stuff on the policy part probably cross applies

PF

c/a stuff from policy