Shreeram Modi

Paradigm

6 min read

Shreeram Modi (he/him)

Lynbrook, NYU

Coaching LD and UC Berkeley

Judging record.

College Policy Chain:

debate@smodi.net;debatedocs@googlegroups.com;

HSLD Chain:

debate@smodi.net;dolsd@googlegroups.com;lddocs@googlegroups.com;

HSCX Chain

debate@smodi.net;dolsd@googlegroups.com;

I have had the privilege of working with some of the most motivated debaters on the circuit and hold an immense appreciation for the dedication debaters have to this activity. My strongest conviction is that debate is a strategy game where everybody wants to win. I believe vehemently in tech over truth and will never discount your argument for its delivery, content, or how it relates to what some may view as ‘real world truth’. The degree to which claims are justified is the degree to which responses must rise.

I have a much lower bar for warrant than most. Namely, I don’t believe in the distinction between ‘claims’ and ‘warrants’; both are merely premises that have a truth-value. What many refer to as ‘warrants’ are just further claims that have a causal influence on the truth-value of a prior claim.1

I don’t believe argument cross-applications are intervention. Because a speech is merely a long list of claims, the position of the claims has little bearing on their implication. To illustrate, if the neg says “reject non-resolutional theory,” applying this to other ‘non-resolutional’ theory sua sponte would be permissible. Though, I tend to be pedantic, and will stick to the exact wording of what you’ve said that I have on my flow.

I flow on my computer2, I will not flow via the speech doc nor attempt to reconstruct my flow based off it.3 I may refer to evidence after the round to resolve questions my flow is insufficient to answer, for instance if there is a lack of clash or impact calculus in final speeches or if litigation of evidence is a deciding factor in the round.

2AR newness will be jurisdictionally rejected. Most of my decisions start off by scanning my flow for arguments that were ‘new’4 in the 2AR and striking them.

My strongest conviction is that debaters should try their utmost to win, the rest is all malleable. Go for the most strategic arguments, not necessarily the ones that maximize clash or display virtue. Deleting analytics, engaging in argumentative sophistry, and establishing win conditions via clash avoidance are not only permissible, but recommended. I will reward approaches that improve your chances of winning and won’t punish you for taking the easy way out.

Below are some hard-line rules, a few of my preferences and predispositions. At the bottom are my defaults absent instruction.

Rules

There are two exceptions to ‘tech over truth’.

  1. Arguments that pertain to the personal character of minors. I personally feel uncomfortable adjudicating these. This is distinct from criticisms of teams’ performance in the debate round or the scholarship they’ve chosen to present. Think more: screenshots, ad hominems, callouts, things that occurred outside the debate, etc.

  2. The following non-negotiable rules. Violating, or suggesting a violation to any of these will result in an automatic loss and the lowest speaker points I can award:

    • One winner and one loser
    • Speech times (as determined by the event)
    • No participation in the debate outside the competitors

Stylistic Preferences

In LD, the negative should introduce competition and framework arguments in the 1NC. If these are newly made in the 2NR, I will find it hard not to give the 2AR carte blanche.

The speech document is not an authoritative record of what happened in the round, merely a device to share evidence. Failing to read evidence you sent is never a problem, nor something you need to correct.

I will not say “clear” during your speech unless your lack of clarity is nearing a rules violation. Prompting you to be clearer would be no different than telling you to change your speech, i.e. intervention. It is the burden of debaters to make complete and flowable arguments in their speeches.

I can understand English, and to a lesser extent, Marathi and Hindi.

I will disregard speaker point instruction.5

You are under no obligation to answer ‘flow check’ questions outside of cross-examination.

Argumentative Predispositions

The privilege of absolute opportunity cost is unappreciated and should be taken by negative teams to its logical extent. I would enjoy seeing an elegant competition strategy and do not share the community’s scorn for counterplans with non-germane net benefits or negative terrorism via fiat.

Critiques on the negative are best when they advance a plan-exclusive framework. By nature, criticisms are not ‘plan focused’ arguments; therefore they rely on establishing a new metric for opportunity cost.

Planless affirmatives are best when deployed as a tool to overwhelm the negative with arguments to extract concessions. Appeals to ethos or persuasion, without backing by technical prowess, are unpersuasive. The nexus question of these debates usually comes down to what the ballot solves, it seems imperative you have a justified answer.

I have academic familiarity with many analytic and moral philosophical takes, but have thought little about their deployment in debate. Nonetheless, I do not share many others’ disdain for philosophical positions and will attempt my best at evaluating them.

‘Zero risk’ is only achievable through technical concessions.

Defaults

Offense/defense, except for topicality violations and ‘Perm: do CP’.

My inclination is that normal means is probabilistic.

Unlimited conditionality6, yes judge kick.

Plan in a vacuum, functional competition.

Predictability categorically outweighs any other procedural impact.

Footnotes

  1. Consider also that statements which are ‘claims, sans warrants’ could be rewritten to include a warrant. E.g. you could rewrite

    ASPEC, they didn’t, that’s a voting issue.

    to

    Vote them down because they didn’t specify an agent.

    If your stance is that claims need a second-line warrant, this falls apart because that ‘second-line’ warrant itself would require a second-line warrant, and so on and so forth. ↩

  2. I will attempt to flow cross-examination, but will not evaluate new arguments (e.g. evidence) read during cross-examination. However, anything said during cross-examination is binding. I will ignore “flex prep” or questions asked during preparation time. ↩

  3. If you wish to see a copy of my flow of the round, please let me know. ↩

  4. An argument is new if it was not present in the previous speech or if its explanation changed in a manner that the opposing team could not have predicted. ↩

  5. My flow can only decide who I should award the ballot to; speaker points are a corrective for desirable practices.

    Consider this: if the 2AC dropped “Shreeram must give me all his possessions” would I be obliged to do so? If not, then why does this apply to speaker points? ↩

  6. Conditionality is about the practice, not the number. ↩

Graph View