Parikh,+Sanjana

Hi! I debated for Saint Francis for four years in high school where my partner and I were flexible, so I have no biases policy or kritikal. If you're clear, I'll flow you and if you explain why it matters, I'll evaluate it. Framework and impact calc matter to me - If you're going to run a kritikal argument, don't assume I'm familiar with the lit base; articulate the arguments in the context of the affirmative, clarify what should/shouldn't be evaluated and what the role of the ballot should be. Similarly, comparative impact calc is a given for policy strategies. For T, the aff needs to say something for me to not default to offense-defense. Both sides need to discuss T/theory impacts, oftentimes that gets lost in the trivialities of whose definition is from a more credible source or where the violation was embedded. Again, explain why stuff matters. I'm persuaded by smart arguments, lack of evidence or lack of offense is not an automatic reason to lose. I have a hard time considering things extended if there's no reference to warrants. I don't take continuous prep...it ends when you hand over the USB. Don't stress, have fun, love the game and be nice to each other (and me)!

Any other questions: parikhs@stanford.edu.