Sanjeev+Desai

I am a lay judge. Don’t run plans, counterplans, kritiks, theory, disadvantages, etc. and please do not spread. Talk slowly and be persuasive. If you go too fast, I will put down my pen. I prefer stock arguments on the rehabilitation v. retribution topic and traditional cases with a clear and consistent framework with arguments that link back to the standard. The only philosophy I understand is util and deont. At the end of the round, I evaluate offense rather than defensive arguments. I mostly vote on persuasion and I look for good warrants and statistics. I do not care much about impacts as long as they link to the standard. I evaluate T before anything else in the round. I look for one voting issue and I also vote on properly extended arguments. __ At the end of each round, I will disclose: __ 1. Feedback for both the aff/neg 2. What I liked in the round, what I didn’t like 3. Things I was confused on   4. Final decision and speaks __ Philosophy for speaker pts. __  30: Amazing. I think you are debating your positions better than anyone else at the tournament could. You could not only win this tournament but would have a chance to win any tournament in which you debated at the level you did in this round. 29: Fantastic. Very few people could do a better job at debating your position. You have a good shot at making it to late outrounds. 28: Good. You did what you had to do and did not have very many large mistakes. You should clear. 27: All right. You did an adequate job. You will be close to clearing but it could go either way. 26: Below Average. You should not clear. 25: Bad: You need major improvements in pretty much every aspect of debate. Your record should be below .500. <25: Offensive or offensively bad.