Shree Awsare -- James Madison

Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.

Judging philosophy:

Experience: 4 years at Monta Vista High School (2003-2007), 4 years at Columbia University (2007-2011). Cleared twice at CEDA (2009, 2010), qualified to the NDT in 2011. I was an assistant coach at Fordham University (2011), and am currently coaching at James Madison University (2011-).

Short Version (If you think that a particular genre of argument has a significant place in you or your opponent's strategy, you may want to skim through the relevant section in the "long version" below.)

- Do what you're good at.
- I have empirically rewarded gutsy 2NR/2AR strategic choices with very high speaker points. If you think that a small set of arguments will unquestionably win you the debate (for example, a damning concession) and you close all of the doors properly, I will happily vote for you. You will get higher speaker points for a concise, to-the-point speech made in 3 minutes than a speech where you rant and rave needlessly until the timer beeps.
- Don't assume I know your DA scenario, acronyms, or K jargon; err towards explanation
- Your claim needs a warrant and an impact, otherwise it won't count as an argument.
- Strategy > Truth.
- In-Round Persuasion/Spin > "Read this evidence after the round".
- You can convince me to pull the trigger on terminal defense or presumption.
- My facial expressions are obvious--take a hint.
- I will vote on theory cheapshots if you close all the doors.
- I can enjoy a K or performance debate, but I don't enjoy them so much that I hack for them without a basic standard of explanation and refutation.
- I have an absurd enjoyment for well-executed impact turn debates in almost any situation (1AC impacts, DAs, Ks, etc). Just take care not to double turn yourself.

Long Version

Some general things you should know about me before I judge your debate:

- A judge can never be a blank canvas, but my proclivities about debate are mutable. My perspective on debate theory and arguments often change as a result of specific things that I see or am compelled by within particular debates. As a result, I don't have a huge distaste towards particular genres of argument--I am much more interested in how you execute your position(s). Stick to what you are good at. On a similar note: stupid arguments like "counterinterp: only our case is topical," ASPEC, word PICs, time cube, and the lizard people are not encouraged, but I am firmly on the boat that if you can't beat a stupid argument, you don't deserve to win.

- I have an absurd amount of enjoyment for a well-executed impact turn debate.

- I have a tendency to be lazy. As a result, high risk strategies could result in high rewards (in terms of speaks). If you think that a small set of arguments will unquestionably win you the debate and you close all of the doors properly, I will happily vote for you. On the other hand, if you botch your strategic calculation, you will probably not get the said speaker point increase (or the win).

- Frame the ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Don't merely extend a bunch of cards and highlight concessions, but be explicit about why a particular argument or collection of arguments wins you the debate. This task requires thinking about your opponent's best arguments and selling me on why I should privilege your explanation against your opponents' position.

- Evidence quality may become important in close debates but is a secondary concern to persuasion within the debate. This is not to say that I won't read your evidence after the debate (I often do), but I won't evaluate warrants that are in your cards or make judgments about evidence quality unless they were fleshed out adequately in the constructives/rebuttals. In a similar vein, I can be compelled by a well-warranted and well-impacted analytic over a poorly extended series of carded claims. If you make a claim that is not backed up with a warrant or an impact by the end of the rebuttals, I will treat it as if you did not have that argument on the flow.

- You should assume that I am not up on the literature you have read. You should not expect me to know every acronym or all the latest developments in your DA scenario, nor should you assume that I understand all of the jargon in your K. Err on the side of (at least) briefly explaining a concept before jumping into the intricacies of your argument.

- Defense can win debates and I have no problem pulling the trigger on presumption. I can be compelled that there is 0% risk of solvency to an affirmative case, or that there is no internal link within a DA. "There's a 1% chance that we're good for the world" is not a sufficient justification unless you provide a reason for why the opposing team's defensive argument is false or simply mitigates your claim (rather than taking it out terminally).

- I have a tendency to be somewhat expressive. If I find something stupid/distasteful happening within a debate, I will likely grimace, facepalm, and/or shake my head; if I didn't understand you, I will give you a quizzical look. You should look up occasionally and take hints from the visual cues that I am sending. I won't make verbal interjections within a debate unless you're being unclear.

- There is a fine line between being sassy and being rude. Don't cross it. If you don't know the difference, just watch for how I react through my facial expressions.

Some specific concerns:

Topicality-- I default to competing interpretations absent a different way of adjudication. I highly enjoy these debates when they provide a robust, comparative perspective of your vision of how the topic and/or debates should function. This requires an explicit list of what specific cases and/or practices your interpretation permits/disallows and why this is beneficial for the activity. As for "Kritiks of T": I tend not to view these as RVIs, but instead as counter-standards that privilege an alternate debate curriculum that is (arguably) more important than traditional conceptions. Negatives that plan on defending T against these criticisms should not only maintain that the 1AC does not meet what they view as fair and educational debate, but also need to go into a more specific discussion that impacts why their vision of a fair and educational debate is good and why the negative's alternate curriculum is worse in comparison.

Theory-- Similar to T debates, the best theory debates requires a robust interpretation and an explicit list of specific practices (that happened in this particular debate or otherwise) that your interpretation permits or disallows and why this is beneficial for the activity. The one difference is that I will default to "reject the argument, not the team" unless given a reason otherwise. I have been known to vote on cheapshots, but these require fulfilling a high standard of execution (a fully warranted and impacted explanation of your cheapshot, and closing the doors on any cross-applications the aff can make from other flows). Stylistically speaking, slowing down in these debates will help me put more ink on your side of the flow--otherwise I may miss a part of your argument that you find important. Additionally, a well-thought out interpretation and 3 warranted arguments regarding why a particular practice in debate is bad is significantly stronger than a blippy, generic re-hashing of a 10-point block.

Straight-up Strategies-- My favorite strategies often involve more than one or more of the following: an advantage counterplan, topic specific DA(s), and a solid amount of time allocated to case turns/defense. I am obviously open to hear and evaluate more generic arguments like politics, dip cap, delay counterplans, and process counterplans if that is your forte, and you should obviously go for what you are winning.

K and Performance Strategies-- I am a philosophy major and spent a significant chunk of my college debate career defending and answering both K and performance arguments. My familiarity with this style of debating makes it a double-edged sword. I will be very impressed if you command significant knowledge about the theory at hand and are able to apply them to the case through examples from popular culture or empirical/historical situations. On the other hand, if you fail to explain basic theoretical ideas within the scope of the K or fail to engage particular points of contention presented by the affirmative, I will be thoroughly unimpressed. Similarly, when opposing a K or performance, I am much more interested in arguments (analytics and cards) that not only substantively engage the K but thoroughly defend why your theorization of politics and interaction with the social should be preferred, rather than a generic 50 point survey of claims that are made by positivist thinkers. This is not to say that generic "greatest hits" style arguments have no value, but they certainly need to be backed up with a defense of the conceptual framing of your 1AC (eg, if the negative wins that the kritik turns the case or a no v2l claim, I'm not sure what "predictions good" or "cede the political" does for the affirmative). In terms of a theory/framework debate, I am much less likely to be persuaded by generic "wrong forum" claims but will be more likely to be compelled by arguments pointing to abusive sections of the specific K that is being run (eg, the nature of the alt).

It's also important to defend your impacts thoroughly. My favorite straight up affirmatives to read when I debated had big hegemony advantages. My favorite K authors to read when I debated were Baudrillard and more pessimistic Nietzscheans and psychoanalysts. As a result, I am unlikely be swayed or guilted into voting for you if the only argument you make is a moralizing reference to people suffering/dying. This is NOT to say that I won't vote for you if you choose a strategy that relies on these impacts (I have regularly voted for aff and neg arguments, both traditional and performative, that rely on structural violence as a terminal impact). However if these impacts are challenged either through impact turns or comparisons, I will not hack for you; I require an adequate refutation of why their impact calculation or understanding of suffering/death is false/incomplete and reasons for why I should prefer your framing. In other words, if the opposing team says "hegemony good and outweighs your K" or alternatively, reads a "suffering/death good" style kritik and your only comeback is "you link to our arguments and people are oppressed" without much other refutation, you will lose. When your moral high ground is challenged, own up to it and refute their assumptions/explanations.

Regardless of what you think I know about K literature, you should err on the side of explanation-- I will not vote for a haphazard collection of buzzwords that are not adequately explained.

Speaks-- Largely subjective, but I will generally stick to what's outlined below (in the open division). Other things that may influence speaker points include (but are not limited to): clarity, stealing prep, being excessively mean, humor, the strength of your CX

< 25: You really got on my nerves and you deserve an equally obnoxious number on the 0-25 part of the scale
25: You showed up but didn't really make an argument past the 1AC/1NC, and didn't ever acknowledge the fact that there were opponents making arguments in your speech
26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents
27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims
28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers
28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish.
29: I feel like you will be in the late elims of the tournament that I am judging at
29.5: I feel like you are one of the top few debaters I've judged that year.
30: I feel that you are the best debater I've seen that year.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision
BingHmptOpen1ArmyCornelius 27.1Davila27.5RochstrBatha27.8Diamond27.9NEG
BingHmptNovDoubBing/RochstrGreenberg0Monday0ArmyFarrow0McGovern0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
BingHmptJVOctoLibertScott0Trujillo0CUNY Baroudi0Jackson0AFF 2-1 (NEG)
BingHmptOpenQurtLibertBobbitt0Warren0CUNY Cheung0Forbes0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
LibertyNovSemiRichmondDuBois0Suh0NavyHerrera0Howe0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
WestPtNov1CrnlJaffe27Rasch26.9CUNY Francis 26.2Segnan26.4AFF
WestPtNov5CUNY Khan26.2Torres 26.3MUFeldstein25.9Halwagy26.5NEG
WestPtOpenOctoNYUAli0Grau0LibertLandrum0Siegrist0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
NavyJVQurtLibertScott0Trujillo0ArmyAllen0Cornelius 0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
MonmouthNov3MiaFLHendrix27.9Rosillo26.8CUNY Khan27Medas26.9AFF
MonmouthOpen4CUNY Cheung28.2Forbes27.9GeoMasLastovica28.4Nichols28.3NEG
MonmouthNov5BingGeorge27.7Pinchuk27.4CUNY Francis 27.3Segnan27.5AFF
MonmouthOpenOctoGeoMasKwon0Kyagaba0RochstrDiamond0Kasschau0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
MonmouthJVQurtLibertAlsop0Rossdeutscher0CUNY Antiqua0Fatima0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
WVUNovNatNov3RochstrEturi27.6Monday29.5WestVaGuirguis27.4Russell 28AFF
WVUNovNatJV4LibertAlsop27.2Rossdeutscher28.1ArmyHodgkins28Houchin 27.3NEG
WVUNovNatJV6RochstrLim28.2Rose27.2ArmyAllen28.3Cornelius 28NEG
WVUNovNatNov7WestVaOrteza28.2Palmer28.3CUNY Francis 27Segnan27.2AFF
WVUNovNatNovOctoBingEvans0Frumkin0FloridLee0Manov0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
WVUNovNatJVQurtFloridPrescott0chessman0NSFowle0Opperman0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
WVUNovNatJVSemiGeoMasKwon0Lastovica0BingReddick0Zglobicki0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
WVUNovNatJVFinalFloridPrescott0chessman0GeoMasKwon0Lastovica0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
CEDAOpen2CUNY Torre27.3Aslam27L'VilleBurns27.5Huot27.4NEG
CEDAOpenTripCSUFCarter0Thach0PittsbLee0Markus0NEG 2-1 (NEG)

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: