Panjwani,+Aman

Monsignor Kelly Catholic High School '16, Harvard College '20

I debated LD for Monsignor Kelly in TX for four years. I have experience on the national circuit and the TFA circuit.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

SUMMARY: I prefer a good debate over a bad debate. Run whatever argument you want (besides the explicit racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. ones). The point is that I would prefer you articulate an argument well, which usually mean you're familar with it, than run an argument poorly, a sign that you're not familar with it.
 * A few points about my debate style: In high school I prefered "policy-type" arguments. However, that does not mean I will only vote for those arguments. I am very comfortable and willing to vote for critical or "performance-type" arguments.
 * Clarity is key. If I don't understand the argument in the first speech, I won't vote for it after the last speech. I'll say clear a few times, but if clarity becomes a problem, it will affect your speaks. Speed is fine, but clarity comes first.
 * Persuasion is also key. Not only will it increase speaks, but a well articulated argument against a tricky theory shell may just be enough. On the other hand, if there is clear in-round harms, a persuasive theory shell may come out on top as well.
 * Argue, explain, explain again, and crystallize. This is just Debate 101. Do it and you'll make me happy. The best debaters with the high speaks know what arguments to go for and how to explain them in the most effective way. Most of the times I can recognize those debaters and they will be rewards.
 * I don't care if you sit or stand for any part of the debate.

THEORY/TOPICALITY Coming from a high school with limited to zero debate resources, I understand the importance of theory/topicality arguments in debate. However, what that means is that there should be explicit in-round abuse. Theory/topicality should be a check on that. While I will evaluate frivolous shells, the level of persuasion needed to successfully defend against them will be substantially low. That just goes back to persuasion and effective argumentation. Nevertheless, a few things will make a theory/topicality debate better for everyone:
 * Clear interpretations and standards are key. Make the shells unique to the in-round abuse and circumstances. You'll me more happy with my decision at the end of the round if you do this.
 * Arguments should be clear as well. Frequently debaters forget to weigh standards or provide competing interpretations. No matter how you go about arguing for/against the shell, do it in a precise and compelling manner.
 * Have strong evidence. Don't misquote or misrepresent the newest VBriefly article. If you prefer not to use carded arguments (which is totally acceptable), have strong warrants. The theory is like no other.

"CRITICAL" ARGUMENTS I ran these arguments much more frequently my junior and senior years of high school debate. However, that does not mean I am familar with the all the literature. No matter, I will still vote for it, if it wins the round. All that means is that you have to explain the argument to me, just like you would have to in any other debate round.
 * Avoid jargon. If you must use it, explain it really well. If you're unsure, just ask me before the round if I'm familiar with a certain type of literature.
 * Role of the ballot arguments do not necessarily come first in the round. I don't presume that. You can make that argument though, and if I find it convincing, I will weigh it as such.
 * Clear Alternatives or Advocacy statements are essential. I need to know exactly what you want to do. Don't muddle this debate and make sure to weigh just as you would any other argument.

"POLICY" ARGUMENTS These are the arguments I am most familar with. Nevertheless, don't assume that I have a lower bar in voting for them.
 * Slow down on tags, author names, and texts (no one ever does this... be the better debater).
 * Weighing arguments is really important here. I don't have a predisposition to magnitude, probability, or time frame (or whatever else you think of). The important thing is to just weigh and explain why your argument is more important.
 * Don't assume I know all the jargon here either. I may be familar with certain extinction scenarios or counterplans, but you are still responsible for explaining them.

FRAMEWORK This is LD debate and, as such, I would expect some type of framework in the round. Make it clear what arguments link back to your framework so it's easier on my flow. Treat this debate like any other in the round.
 * Be ready to defend your philosophies implications.
 * While I may be familar with certain framework cards/arguments, I'll still hold you to a high burden when it comes to explaining it.
 * A good framework debate is really fun to judge. A muddled framework debate usually makes my head hurt.