Parikh,+Anshuman

I am currently a Freshman at Emory. I debated at Pace Academy in high school. Do what you are good at it and dont be afraid to make bold strategic decisions in the debate - I will probably like it.
 * New stuff**
 * Short Version**

I love the impact turn/case and disad strategy, and most of my favorite debates involve a large amount of case engagement. I am not as much of a fan of kritiks like death drive and baudrillard etc or performance arguments but will vote on them if you win them. I am very willing to pull the trigger on T, however i hold the neg to a high technical threshold when going for this argument and dislike the aff argument that "our aff was put out at camp, its obviously predictable." I am fine with theory, and went for condo a lot. Dont go for it unless you know how to impact it well and make it sound like an actual argument. If i dont have the argument on my flow, i wont vote on it, debate is a persuasive activity, its your job to convince me to vote for you, if that means you have to slow down on tags, then please do so, its in your best interest.
 * Old stuff**

**Long Version**
 * General:** I default to tech over truth on //__most__// questions. A dropped argument is //__usually__// a true argument. I most often go for impact turns, disads and case, and T in 2nrs. I am what most people would consider a "policy debater." That being said, I still go for the K, so do what your most comfortable with. I will try and express how im feeling as im listening to a speach, so if you see me nodding during your speach, your probably doing something right, and if im frowning and shaking my head, you should probably think about what your doing wrong.


 * Case:** Case defense should be in the 2nr if your going for a disad without a CP. I weigh a dropped aff impact just the same as a dropped disad impact, and a dropped affirmative advantage is equivalent to a dropped disad. Cards are obviously important in case debates, however smart analytics which pick apart the case can be more effective and mitigated the aff. Good explanation is crucial for both sides on the case debate, especially if its with an obscure aff. Even if its a common affirmative good explanation is necessary to win the argument.


 * CP:** I also enjoy CP and disad/CP and internal Net benefit debates. In particular the Adv CP and impact turned other advantage strat is one of my favorites. If the affirmative doesnt have a net benefit to the CP, then i hold the neg to a very low threshold on winning the net benefit. In terms of solvency deficits, the aff has to impact the solvency deficit and tell me why it matters, before i really weigh it. If they do not, then the neg framing of sufficient to solve the aff, is pretty persuasive to me. However, I am very willing to pull the trigger on dropped perms, and allow the impacts to solvency deficits to be brought out in the 1ar. I do not go for Agent/Consult/Condition Cps as often, and will be honest, a huge theory debate surrounding the question of perm by the neg is probably going to bore me. Additionally, i have problems on the question of CP competition on these issues, if it is not a mandate of the aff, i dont really think the neg gets to generate competition off of it. The negative probably has to have a solvency advocate with these types of Cps as well. Considering this is the place where most people question "zero risk of a disad" ill put my thoughts here. In most instances, i am unlikely to vote on zero risk of a net benefit, however a technical drop by the negative can take out 100% of the disad. The affirmative has to explain why that argument takes out the entirety of the net benefit though.


 * DA:** You will be hard pressed to convince me that their is zero risk of a net benefit, however a technical concession by the neg can change my opinion on that issue. If the neg concedes the uniq debate on politics, the aff just has to explain to me why that means their is no longer a risk of the disad, and that should be sufficient for me. Without a concession however, their is almost always a risk. That being said, the aff has many options to drastically reduce the risk of a da. If the aff solves the impact to the disad, and the negative doesnt explain to me why the disad means thats not true, whether that be from timeframe analysis, or telling me that it is an internal link turn to the case, it will most likely take out the disad.


 * Impact/internal link turns:** My favorite negative strategy. Prolif good, Stim bad, Heg bad, Warming good. Im well versed in these arguments and go for them with regularity. A well executed impact turn is a great way to get awesome speaks in front of me. It is also perhaps the easiest way to win a debate in front of me. That being said, if you are going for a really sketch impact turn, like radiation good/china war good, your going to have to spend a LOT of time here and do some extremely good explanation. My threshold for aff answers decreases with the sketchiness of the impact turn. The exception to that, is if you have really good ev and manage to explain it really well in a logical way, then ill pull the trigger there easily. Additionally, if your going for an impact turn to one aff impact, dont forget to answer the other aff impact.


 * K:** Im not a big fan of most kritiks. I would definately prefer to listen to the impact turn debate that i mentioned above, but certain Ks, like the Security K, Cap K, and Heg K, are essentially impact turns and I understand Ks like those quite well, a lot better than say neitzche or death good . I will hold the neg to a high threshold of explanation when going for the K, so dont just assume i understand how your alternatives solves everything just because you tell me it does. This being said, if the aff undercovers/messes up a kritik, ill easily pull the trigger here, but do yourself a favor and explain the argument in your speaches. As can clearly be seen, I am a bit biased against this argument, so dont make me do work for you here.


 * T: ** One of my favorite arguments. I love a good T debate, and am very willing to vote on this and give good speaks for it. That being said, I hate whiny abuse standards and independent voters on T. You should do extensive interpretation extension, and explain why your interp is relatively better than theirs. In order to vote on T, i need to have an explanation of the negs impacts, just saying "the aff explodes limits, that kills fairness" is not sufficient. You should provide me specific examples of how the aff's interpretation explodes limits, and explain why limits explosion is bad, or if your going for ground, why the ground you lose is good ground. I default to competiting interpretations, and have learnt that many aff teams answer T terribly. As the affirmative, you better have offense on T, unless you are going for the we meet/reasonability strategy. If you are going for we meet, you should probably extend reasonability or ill vote on minute/contrived distinctions that the neg forwards . The neg will have to clearly explain the link to their impacts on T if they want to win them. If its not abundantly clear from the above, i judge T debates in the exact same way i judge disads (i.e. offense-defense by default, unless somebody in the round tells me not to).

**Theory:** **Condo:** More than 2 is probably illegitimate. 2 and under are questionable. Even so, I dislike 1ar's/2ar's which whine for 5 minutes about how they were abused. I prefer debates which treat conditionality as a debate argument, i.e. set up your link, your impacts, and do comparative impact calc as to why your impact to why condo is bad outweighs their reasons why conditionality is good. **Severance/Intrinsicness:** Dont want to vote on this unless they go for the argument that is severance, if you want me to vote on it and they didnt go for it, you have to explain in detail why it is a reason to reject the team over just rejecting the argument, because in all likelyhood i am going to want to reject the argument instead. If they did go for it, I'm still going to need you to spend a decent amount of time on this and do some solid explanation before I vote on it, that being said, i will pull the trigger here if the above requirements are met. **RVIs/Politics cheap shots are a voter:** Not going to vote on this. Dont waste time on them. Even if the RVI is dropped. Only exeption to this rule is if the aff for example reads 4 different interpretations of fiat in their answers to politics. Even in that scneario, i will have a high threshold on explaining why that specificlly is bad, and additionally will be quite pursuaded by reject the argument not the team.