Desai,+Nirali

General Thoughts: All styles of debate can be done very well or very poorly. I think that as a judge, my job is to adjudicate any round as fairly as I possibly can. As a competitor in high school, my least favorite thing was hearing from a judge that "I think debate should be about policy education" or "don't pref me if you read this argument" because the judge's job is to listen to whatever the debaters speak about in whichever manner they want to speak.

Topicality: I think that a lot of topicality debates have now become a wash and a way for the neg to cause a time skew for the aff because the neg is either a) not reading the right shells or b) doesn't understand how to go for topicality. However, a good T debate is something I will vote on. I need a warrant for why I should or should not default to competing interpretations, and I think that there should probably be warrants for abuse rather than a vacuous claim that the aff causes over/underlimiting and that's bad. (Caselists make Topicality debates very damning towards the affirmative if the negative is able to provide one). Also, when teams read topicality arguments against kritikal affirmatives without engaging in the framework debate, it makes it very hard for them to win on T. I am sympathetic to the argument that education outweighs fairness (if warranted) so you should probably explain why being/not being topical allows for a better form of education.

Disads: Sure, disads are great. I think that specific links/internal links are awesome and make it so much easier for me to pull the trigger on a disad because I often times will buy the analytic that there is no brink to the impacts if well explained by the affirmative.

Counterplans: Good counterplans are great. G oing for a counterplan in the 2NR means that the only relevant comparison is the counterplan versus the plan. If the plan is better than the counterplan, the aff does not need to be compared to the status quo. There should probably be a net benefit to the counterplan.

Kritiks: I debated kritiks almost exclusively in high school and am a fan. I love clever kritiks that introduce unique ideas and I am not really fond of generic K's with generic links. I think it is important for kritikal debaters to warrant their arguments and tailor links (even if they aren't specific links) to the affirmative. I think that if the negative is running a K and can't explain it to the affirmative or can't elaborate on why the it hurts their credibility. I prefer K's with alternatives- if you want to read one as a case turn, that's fine, but if you read 6 of them as case turns without alternatives, I will probably buy the "in round abuse" argument if the affirmative runs conditionality. If your negative strategy is to trick the other team into dropping your "Floating PIC" or to intimidate the team into silence by claiming that they don't understand Your dense verbiage, then you are probably entrenching the hatred for K debate that some judges have and I don't respect you. If your affirmative strategy doesn't change based on the kritik being run - if you have a "toolbox" filled with generic K arguments and Theory, then you are forcing a negative stereotype on K debaters and I probably won't like you very much. Run specific arguments and make specific analysis and explain your links.

Performances/Non Topical Affimatives: I do NOT think that the affirmative has to advocate a topical plan (a framework debate will most likely decide this). I think that performances have the potential to inspire.

Framework: I don’t think the default position for the judge is as a government policy maker—without further instruction, I will assume that the judge should just select the best option regardless of the agent. I love good framework debates. I do think that when the negative makes arguments about why policy education is good against a kritikal aff, they should make comparative analysis for why policy education is BETTER than kritikal education (and probably should have cards that actually say this). I think that the argument that "I don't have anything to say against this aff" is often times bullshit and just sort of complaining, to be honest. Also, reading a Role of the Ballot and having a warrant for why your role of the ballot is better than your opponents makes it SO much easier to decide any debate.

Theory: I generally err neg on theory. I find it problematic that there is often times no articulated impact to a theory debate.

General Asides: I don't want to hear a generic debate where frontlines are read against each other and the debate round essentially becomes a case of two ships passing in the dark because that makes it hard for any judge to make a valid decision.