Jain,+Neeti

I was an LD debater for three years, and I've also had experience in Public Forum, Parli, and Congress. I debated primarily in college and local tournaments, but I have done and seen national circuit stuff. LD is my favorite style of debate, and I hate when it turns into policy. Debate the style I'm here to judge.

I'm pretty lenient on most argumentation, here's a quick breakdown:

Speed: Fine, but I want it to be super clear. I'll yell clear twice before taking off speaks.

Theory: Good for abuse only, I find it hard to buy as a strategy. If it is a strategy, I recommend an informal K.

K, Philosophical Positions: Must be very, very well explained in AR/NR. I will not do any linking between the resolution and your case myself, must be inherent in case.

PICs, CPs, DAs: Once again, links must be incredibly clear. If the whole thing is just card-stacking, I will stop flowing.

Presumption Permissability: Absolutely hate it. Will continue to hate it for the rest of my life.

Skepticism: URGH. Be smart about it.

PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME DO TIME SIGNALS I WILL NOT FLOW YOUR CASE

Random stuff: Please be topical "Not enough evidence" as an argument in itself will not be valued. Ever. Even if the evidence is awful. Find a way to beat if if I buy it. Organization over drops I don't love jargon, its generally unnecessary and doesn't really make you seem more impressive (imo). You must do values. Old-fashioned, yes. I want them. If you have any questions, just ask!