Sevak,+Manav

8 years of CX experience. Debated for 4 years at Chandler High School and previously coached for them (Chandler CS) and Milton High School (Milton HH & Milton FM). I used to be a 2N but I have experience being a 2A as well. Grilled cheese enthusiast.

Last Updated: Westminster 2017


 * General Notes **
 * Anything that's argued and debated well goes
 * Don't try to talk faster than you're thinking - clarity is key if you're speaking fast
 * Clearly outline why you win the ballot in the 2NR/2AR. Judge intervention isn't fun/cool
 * Actual warrant extensions > quick blips
 * Tech > Truth
 * Comfortable with non-traditional/performance stuff as long as it's within the bounds of sanity (whatever that means)
 * Flashing isn't prep; don't steal prep


 * Speaker Points **

These vary from round to round because of subjectivity but I'm relatively lenient compared to most judges. 30.0 is rare (only once). 28.2 - 28.6 = Average 28.7 - 29.1 = Above average/good speaker 29.2 - 29.5 = Good enough for elims 29.6 - 29.9 = Late elims

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Rather than taking away points for poor debating, I much more often reward them for nifty tricks/good strategy. That being said:
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Aggressiveness =/= rudeness. Make a point but be respectful in the process. We're all part of the same community.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">I'll pay attention to CX and strategic ones will be awarded.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Numbering arguments (starting from the 2AC) will be rewarded with an extra 0.2 points. It will help you organize your flows and naturally increase the clarity/organization of your speeches.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Clash is crucial for high speaks and wins.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Jokes/humor in speeches are encouraged but please don't spend your entire speech making puns. On that note, jokes about the Seattle Seahawks = +0.1. Also, jokes about Chandler High or Milton High debate squads = +0.2.

__**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Specifics **__

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">**Case** --- I highly value research and think well made case negs are the most damaging. Make sure case arguments are frictional with your off case impacts or CP solvency. No, neg flex, while tolerable, is not the only or best answer to contradictions across flows. Compared to most judges, I am more willing to vote on just case if it's well debated and there's some solid offense.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">**Counterplans** --- I think case-specific PICs are strategic. I'm not a big fan of consult CPs (or anything with an artificial net benefit) or CPs that compete solely on a solvency differential. It's not that they're bad, but really, they're bad. 2NR needs to have good solvency mechanism articulation and comparative analysis between the CP/aff.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">**Disads** --- The more specific, the better. Disads are wonderful if they're specific. I very much enjoy and hope to hear good link articulation in context of the aff. I think disad-specific case arguments are incredibly beneficial at framing and winning a debate. I've warmed up to the politics disad quite a bit recently. I'm somewhat skeptical of the link debate on politics, but that's likely a side effect of not seeing it done well recently. My preference on politics links are also a personal belief that doesn't have a bearing on my decision - if you think you can do a good/winning job with it, roll with it.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">**Kritiks/Non-Traditional Affs** --- Hype. I'm fairly well-versed with critical literature and read a decent amount while I debated. Throughout my career, I leaned left three out of four years reading soft left and hi-theory affs. I think there is a lot of strategic and educational value to reading these arguments and they can have tremendous impact both in debate and in larger communities if executed correctly. I think a bigger and bigger problem with kritiks is that they're being read more often but not explained with the level of detail they ought to be. Many rounds tend to have close to no explanation of what a post-alternative/post-affirmative world looks like or what the alternative/aff actually does, which puts me in a pickle (I like pickles too) in terms of understanding what I am voting for. I frame Ks through the framework debate but the aff should be able to weigh their justifications - I won't kick the alt for you and I really hope there's an explanation of how the alt resolves the impacts to the K. Dropping swanky/famous last names =/= giving an explanation of ideology/methodology. Please don't just read overviews or pre-written arguments for the full speech, be creative and clash in the context of the debate. While my voting record historically leans left, I have a relatively high threshold for solvency explanations and round-specific articulation.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">**T/FW** --- Sure! I'll evaluate it just as fairly as I would any other argument. I think these debates can be very educationally and strategically valuable but have to be executed correctly (which rarely happens). The biggest problem with teams reading T/Framework is that it isn't impacted well in the context of the aff and I end up being confused as to why I should vote for the argument/why one model of debate is better/whether education or fairness comes first/what education matters/what abuse has taken place (e.g. "we lose links to the spending DA" isn't a substantial enough reason to vote neg). Historically, my voting record is not in favor of FW but that doesn't mean you won't pick up my ballot if you read it.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">**Theory** --- It's aight. In addition to utilizing it as a voting issue, I like teams that couple their theory with other arguments to justify/extrapolate key arguments to give them the edge on contested issues. I have a high threshold on using theory as a reason to vote aff/neg; give me a compelling reason (more than just a blip) why I should reject the team. In most cases, it's just a reason to reject an argument or not a team but if you do enough work on it, you most definitely may be able to convince me otherwise. Please please please make sure you give some example of abuse, i.e. specific models of debate/in-round, or have solid proof for your violation and have a logical impact in conjunction with that.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">If you can't find the answer to something here, default to Adam Symond's wiki. He was one of the best lab leaders I had and my philosophy aligns with his for the most part.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">If you have any questions before/after the round and still don't know the answer, shoot me an email: mnvsevak97@gmail.com.