Panday,+Anuj

Debated at Chattahoochee in High School and 4 years at Emory University.

Haven't judged much on the Space Topic, so keep in mind that I may not be in the loop for many of the community standards for the topic (what's topical, what counterplans are considered competitive, etc).

Important: Be funny and/or engaging. Debates aren't fun to judge otherwise. Don't be dicks to each other please. Cross-x is very important.

You have to have a plan, and you have to provide the neg some topic-specific ground.

My favorite kind of debate to judge is disad/case. I think that most aff cases are pretty terribly constructed, and that the neg can and should nearly always seek to dismantle them. Sometimes, just smart analytics are enough to take out a substantial risk of affirmative cases. On the other hand, the same can be said about disads. Disads are usually fairly dumb, and can be easily taken apart by a smart 2a. These debates are at their best when neither side wins anything larger than a very small risk of their offense. Think about it this way: debate arguments are gross overexaggerations of particular nuggets of truth, and by the end of the debate, those exaggerations should be exposed.

I like cps that are well-developed in both the debate and the literature base or cps that are compared specifically to the aff. I really really really dislike generic counterplans that are meant to avoid debating the merits of whether the aff should be done ie agent cps, consult cps, condition cps, etc. I am fairly conservative on limiting cp fiat and I think that there are some good arguments against multi-actor fiat, international actor fiat, 50 state fiat, etc. I am neutral on conditionality.

T debates are boring and meant to limit out ridiculous affs that don't allow the neg to respond. If the neg has a reasonable amount of topic specific ground, the aff is probably fine.

K's are alright I guess. The problem I have with them is that they make sweeping generalizations that I don't find persuasive at all. For example: x is inevitable, x is the root cause, discourse shapes reality, etc. Many of the arguments are partially true, but in order to win a K, many time you need to win that they are absolutely true at all times. To beat Ks, the aff just basically needs to answer the checklist of tricks, and should be fine. Of course, this all changes if the K evidence is highly specific.