Ranganathan,+Meghana

Hi!

I debated for four years at Greenhill and am now a freshman at Swarthmore College (I don't debate there). When thinking about how to debate in front of me, keep in mind that I haven't debated in a few months and have next to no knowledge of this topic. Therefore, explanation will be greatly appreciated - if I don't understand your argument or you keep using jargon that's topic-specific, it'll be tough for me to vote for you since I'll have no idea what you're saying.

If you want to know a bit more about how I view debate, I'd advise checking out Eric Forslund's judge philosophy - I agree with the vast majority of it...but here's some specifics:


 * Kritiks** - I didn't like them in high school, mainly because I didn't understand them and no one ever explained them right. Therefore I have a tendency to think that most of them are pretty silly, but there are some out there that are really good and make a lot of sense, so be sure to explain them well! Make a clear link story and have an impact.


 * Case** - I like case defense and I like case offense. Be sure to spend a sufficient amount of time here if it's a viable strategy, and discuss the impacts to the case.


 * DA****/CP** - I like these strategies, be sure to do impact calculus!


 * Theory** - I tend to lean negative on CP competition and theory, but I'll vote for whoever debates better. I don't have a problem with theory debates, but make sure the arguments you make are consistent and have real impacts - just reading blocks the whole time isn't a good idea. Cheap shot theory arguments aren't fun and I probably won't vote on them. Multiple conditional worlds are probably good - I enjoy counterplans strategies, but I can be convinced otherwise.


 * Topicality** - I enjoy topicality debates if debated well. However, I don't know the topic that well so topicality needs to be explained a lot.


 * Extra Things** - I love politics debates - most of my favorite aff strategies were against politics and favorite neg strategies included it. Line by line is important. I protect the 2NR - I won't flow new arguments in the 2AR.

BE NICE! I get that there is some ethos that comes from aggression, but there is a fine line between being a strong debater and being mean. You will lose speaker points for being mean.

This is from Forslund's wiki: " I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are very few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other. Finally, although I understand the strategic value to impact turning the alternative to kritiks and disads (and would encourage it in most instances), there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to those include: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t. “

You can always ask me things before the debate!!! Have fun! :)