Patel,+Djorn

I debated on the state and national level for four years (2010-2014) for Southlake Carroll high school in Texas, and I am currently a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania.

If you don't want to read everything below, here's a nice little TL;DR:

-Run whatever you like. -Have good extensions. -Be a decent human being. -Speed's fine. I'll call clear. -Yes, you can sit. -Performance args, irony, and stuff are fine, just justify them. -K's are cool, just know what you're talking about and explain it well. -Theory's fine, just don't be muddled -Policy concepts are A-okay, but I'm not very experienced in them. -Basically, debate however you want. -Have fun!

Here's the more detailed explanations of the above:

Now, I'll start off on saying that this is your activity, so participate in it however you want, so long as you're not blatantly being a jerk to your opponent. Have fun, run strats you're comfortable with, and just enjoy the activity.

**General:** Unless given a reason not to, I assume your args have to be topical and whatnot. Be polite in round, don't use offensive rhetoric or anything like that, or it'll make me and your opponent very sad. I do have an above-average threshold for extensions, if you're not extending the full argument then I don't have an argument to evaluate. That said, I'll be less strict on "thoroughness" for things like the 1AR. I'll ignore new arguments unless you give me a reason not to.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">**Defaults:** I don't have a "default" in the sense of assuming truth testing or offense-defense or anything like that. What I do want to hear are justifications as to why whatever way you are evaluating the round is correct, and comparison between your and your opponent's framing of the round. That can take whatever viewpoint you want, from a theory debate to criterion battle to "the better debater is defined as he or she who can drop the sickest beat". If neither debater tells me how to evaluate the round, then I dock both debaters' speaks and vote for whoever is doing a better job of interacting arguments and presenting a rational, cohesive position.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">**Presentation:** Dress how you like, sit or stand, etc. Just be polite. Speed's fine, but I'm a horrible flower so I wouldn't recommend going max speed if you're particularly fast. Also, if you're spreading then you have to signpost more explicitly, speak clearly, and provide fully warranted arguments. If you use speed as an excuse to blipstorm a thousand warrantless arguments, I won't be very happy. I'll call clear, but if I'm doing it like 3+ times a speech then I'll be displeased and dock your speaks accordingly.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">**Role of the Ballot:** If you don't tell me anything, I assume the ballot goes to whoever presents better rational argumentation for their side. If you think it should function in a different way, argue for it. If you want it to be a battle of policy options, a theory debate, or a Super Smash Bros Battle, tell me why.

__**<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Specific positions **__

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">**K's/Critical Positions:** I ran K's a lot during my career, I find them interesting and useful to framing a lot of arguments, and arguably they're my favorite kind of position. So, if you like critical arguments, feel free to run them. This does not mean you win for running a K, it means that if you do so in a way that does not make sense, or misuse arguments you stole from policy backfiles hoping that your opponent and judge will not notice/be confused and you will win, you are wrong. Critique what you want. If you want to tell me that your opponent's sentence structure creates an oppressive aesthetic, or that the action of the AC causes us to forget the nature of death experiences I am fine with that. So discourse, ethics, impact, etc. K's are fine, just justify why I should view the round like that. I am open, as I said, to any manner of argumentation and am personally a fan of more "progressive" and "critical" positions. There are three main things you should draw from this. First, I will not throw out arguments because "we do not even know what this means." You need to make actual arguments against them. Secondly, if you are making unwarranted critical arguments, miscutting an author, or straight up lying about an argument, you will probably not get away with it. Finally, if you cannot explain the position succinctly in CX, your opponent can not answer it, and I will probably penalize you severely. You need to be able to explain your arguments properly, without repeating the same jargon-bloated phrases over and over. Additionally, if I don't understand your argument in the first speech, I'll be hard-pressed to vote on it later. If you want to do something that criticizes your opponent's precept in a certain way (The most common example is "X Justifies The Holocaust"), then relate it properly to the ballot and your opponent's position properly, otherwise it's every bit as offensive as the practice you're trying to condemn. If you're trying to make links like that when there aren't any though, don't expect a happy ending.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">**Theory:** I come to the table in theory debates with a workable but not all encompassing grasp on the vocabulary of theory. If my theory flow gets really muddled, I will probably make a bad decision. So, you should try to make sure that my theory flow does not get muddled by explaining the implications of your arguments. Be explicit. Point out which arguments your spike is taking out, and explain why. When doing weighing, explain why you are outweighing your opponent in explicitly comparative terms. In general, don't just speed through a thousand tiny theory analytics, all the while making complex strategic moves, and expect me to have a full understanding of the way your arguments function. I have a mid-high threshold for warrants, which spikes if you're running potential abuse. Responses to theory can not be disregarded because you think you are winning the abuse story, do not be the person who loses because they ignore simplistic responses to developed voters because you think you do not have to prove fairness is important, it can be simply explained, do so. I'm fine with theory bad args, "metatheory," etc, just make your args explicit and don't let my flow get muddled. I'm fine with paragraph theory and things like that, but that said, I'm not a huge fan of an AC that's 95% paragraph theory and 5% actual AC. I won't downvote you if that's your thing, if you win the round then you win the round, but you shouldn't expect super-high speaks from me. Also, I am one of the few judges who will accept post fiat applications to theory, such as "the winning position on the framework debate being deontology means we should evaluate theory from a deontic perspective", but you need to justify it properly. I'm willing to listen to things like "skep negates theory," but whether or not I vote on that is dependent on the specific kind of skep, and how well you articulate your reasons for saying that; that's the toughest thing to apply from the post-fiat to the pre-fiat level, so don't think you can just say "he/she dropped skep, skep negates theory" and sit down.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">**Policy Args (Plans, CPs, Disads, etc):** I am vaguely familiar with the basic composition of policy style arguments, and have a good enough grasp of the vocabulary to not be lost from the start. However, I am not super familiar with more advanced policy concepts that rarely see LD rounds. I know this is vague, so if you're worried I recommend asking me specifics before the round. If I don't know what something is, then explain what it is well. Also, you should justify why your policy arg is sufficient to win you the ballot, as you should with every argument.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">**Post-Round:** Feel free to question me on my RFD, but don't get angry at me or your opponent. I will treat you with respect and will listen to what you have to say. Please do the same.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">**Speaker Points:** I average around a 28. Points from there are given or taken away based on your strategy in-round, if you're a good person, and if you were comprehensible. The "quickest" way to a 30 is probably a well-run critical position, but don't run things you're not comfortable with. Humor can help boost you as well, if you're legitimately hilarious I'll probably give you a 30, but if you're being that funny then you're probably running irony or something, in which case a Loss 30 is pretty certain if you lose your Role of the Ballot. If you're debating someone well below your experience level and you're helpful instead of arrogant, I'll reward you; let's help kids learn and grow instead of bullying them because we can. Also, feel free to run args like "drop me, but give me a 30" if you have good enough justifications.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Basically, debate how you like, and have fun!