Madhusudan,+Mallika

Freshman at UGA. Debated at Westminster. Updated for MBA 2015

1. I used to be a 2n but I switched to being a 2a my junior year. 2. I’ve only ever done paperless debate so, while I’m sympathetic to computer issues, I don’t like people stealing prep time so I’ll probably just start the timer again if you continue to prep. 3. Make sure you flow! Line-by-line is very important. 4. Evidence quality matters—indicting the other team’s evidence can help frame the debate in your favor. 5. I’m fine with speed, but I will stop flowing if I can’t understand what you’re saying. I’ll yell clear a couple of times at you first though. 6. CX is pretty important, so make sure that your questions have a point but still make sure to be polite. I will dock your speaker points if you are rude. 7. Most of my views on debate are pretty mainstream, and I’m open to most arguments, but I am more familiar with policy arguments. Take that how you will. 8. While I consider myself a pretty techy judge, that doesn't give teams not an excuse to not explain.
 * Few overall things:**

Internal links are important. If your aff has weak internal links and the negative team does a good job pointing that out and explaining why they’re terrible, it will affect how I weigh the impacts. People should take pride in the evidence quality in their aff. I like add-ons in the 2ac, but you shouldn’t drastically undercover something just to get a terrible add-on out. A 2ar that sounds great but seems new is kind of sketchy but it's the neg's burden to pre-empt that in the 2nr.
 * Case:**

A good impact DA-case debate with a ton of impact calculus is usually really fun to watch. I reward smart and developed analytics in these situations. If you are extending politics, you better be sure to make turns case arguments and answer line-by-line really carefully. Smart affirmative arguments that are not responded to (even if they don't have a card on them) can reduce the risk of a DA to zero.
 * DAs:**

Cheating CPs are not my favorite but I’ll vote on them. I think if the affirmative does a good job on theory, it’s a reason to reject the team. That being said, line-by-line is still very persuasive and I think solvency deficits that are impacted well can be devastating to a lot of these CPs. Questions of competition are also really important. I will not kick the 2nr’s advocacy for them unless they tell me to. Make sure to explain what the CP does early on.
 * CPs:**

International fiat—probably good, the aff should have a USFG key warrant 50 state fiat—depends on how states is run. If they’re fiating through every solvency deficits, I’ll probably be more sympathetic to the affirmative, but otherwise, it’s just testing the federal government action which is fine. Process/recommend/conditions/consult/etc.—it’s a debate to be had, but in a close debate, I’ll probably lean aff. Conditionality—unless it’s dropped or crazy mishandled, 1 K and 1 CP is probably fine, but I can be convinced otherwise especially with a good perf-con argument. Condo doesn’t come before T. I don't usually like these debates because people make the mistake of going super fast and when mixed with a lack of clarity, it becomes super difficult to flow.
 * T/Theory:**

To be honest, T isn’t my favorite argument but affs definitely need to be topical so I’ll definitely still vote on it, but if a T-violation can’t prove a significant difference in ground and limits, I’ll probably lean aff. Competing interpretations are usually good, but reasonability works with a well developed explanation and a defense of predictability. Discussion of terminal impacts (and relevant impact calc), topical versions of the affirmative, and reasons to prefer are all really important. Make sure all of these arguments are responsive and specific to the affirmative. Also make sure to slow down when extending these arguments.

When these debates get big - please **compartmentalize!** ex. "And now on the perm debate..." This really REALLY helps. And like most judges, I'm going to feel more kindly to the team that I understand more.
 * Ks:**

I don’t mind Ks especially those that usually engage the topic really well. If you can explain these types of arguments clearly, without relying solely on jargon and incomprehensible pre-written blocks, I’ll be willing to listen and maybe vote on it, but again, not my forte. Interacting with the affirmative with the case (especially links and turns the case arguments) is a must. Framework is important sometimes, but I think most times it devolves into ridiculous block reading competitions which I would rather not listen to. Dropped K tricks like “reps 1st” or “value to life” are reasons to vote neg as long as they are clearly highlighted and explained. Just saying "they dropped root cause so we win" is not an argument. Floating PIKs are usually bad so I’m persuaded by the argument that it’s just a solvency advocate for the perm. I like smart 2a's that make the conscious decision between perming vs. impact turning the K.

K affs aren't really my favorite, but I’m willing to listen to most things. I think people should debate to their strengths, so don't read the politics DA because you think I want to hear it instead of Neolib or something. I prefer to see a clear connection to the topic. Again, explanation is super important - just because you've read a science fiction aff the entire year does not mean that I am an expert. As long as framework isn’t botched, I think the neg can easily win that the aff should only defend the resolution not discourse, performance, or ethical stance, etc. I think that line-by-line is really important even in these debates, but debaters should make sure to explain the impact of their arguments throughout the speech.


 * Feel free to ask if you have anymore questions**