Inguva,+Radha


 * High School Policy Debate Alumni**: Canyon Springs Leadership & Law Preparatory Academy
 * Debated:** 4 years
 * Judge Style:** Flow Indubitably

Overview- I've done policy for 4 years, I know how it works. I'm comfortable with speed, but I expect you to go slow on tags & authors. Don't forget to enunciate! The quality of your evidence matters. Make sure you cards aren't powertagged. If you read your T & Theory blocks like a card, I WILL sell your soul. Don't be a jerk during cross-ex. Don't forget Roadmaps, Impact Calcs, & Overviews. I LOVE Util debates. [Insert Dead Baby Joke Here.] I believe Fiat is your magic wand. Use it. I love analytics. I understand everyone is going green & I'm perfectly okay with laptops during a round, but please discuss the evidence-swap with your opponents prior to the round. Now onto the specifics:

Topicality- I adore it! If I'm your judge, I expect you to run it. Don't be scared to go for T in the round. I do prefer solid well-defined T violations over the Spec arguments, but I have voted on Spec arguments before because I understand the strategic time trade-off and utility spec arguments have. To win a T debate, I expect you to impact standards & net benefits to your interpretation. If you're reading Theory on T, PLEASE don't read sandbagging arguments like, "Topicality is timesuck." Just answer the T, don't waste precious time in your 1AR (I'm speaking from experience.)

Disads- Disads are fun, disads are straight up. I believe that they are core negative strategy & I've won rounds with them. Make your link analysis in the link debate & make all link/impact turns clear & very specific. Impact calcs are VITAL to the life of your disad

Ks- I'm pretty educated on the basic K's (Cap, Biopower, Standpoint Epistemology, Fem, & Coercion) But even the most basic K’s can be read from different points & foster different arguments, so I will not promise you that I know everything about your K. If you're running a crazy K like the BoogeymanJesusCupcake-K; then I probably don’t know the literature of it & expect you to explain it. If you can't explain it, don't run it. Explain why the Alt. is awesome & why the perm sucks & why the case doesn't outweigh. Explain your links & impact them. I will vote on it.

Counterplans: They are fabulous. Explain why the perm uniquely DOESN’T SOLVE. Why is solely the negative key & what flaws are in the aff’s plan that isn’t in your counterplan? You can run as many as you want, but please be prepared when the affirmative obviously reads condo bad on you.

Performance- I've never done it personally, but if it's your thing, by all means, entertain me. However, don't waste your time, your opponents time, and more importantly, MY time if you're going to run Silence. Be warned I'll be persuaded much easier by affirmative’s framework arguments and abuse claims on performance debates.

Theory: I’ve read all types of theory. I’m comfortable with Condo, Dispo, & PICS. I strongly advocate "reject the argument, not the team," especially because no team ever explains why a team should be rejected. If you go for theory, please spend time on it! Truth be told, multiple condo pics are atrocious. I cannot tell you how many rounds I've lost for not saying "Theory Preceeds T."

Framework: Framework debates should have a merit to why your interpretation is better for debate and how it implicates debate. I am open to ALL frameworks, just make sure you continue to advocate it throughout the round.

Ultimately, it is YOUR debate round. Follow your heart. Run arguments you're passionate about. Don't debate for the sake of debating, that's what PF is for.