Dave,+Devavrat

Heritage Hall '17 UC Berkeley '21 I don't know why this is relevant but I went to the TOC/had 4 bids and debated for four years, so I'll probably know what you're talking about. Yes - add me to the email chain - ddave17@berkeley.edu
 * About Me:**

I don't know LD. I don't understand your values or your criterion and whatnot, please do not pref me unless you want me to judge this like a policy debate. And even then, please don't pref me for LD. Incoming freshman at UC Berkeley - the short version of this is that you do what you want and I'll evaluate it. I have no problem with K Affs or K's, and in fact debated them the vast majority of my senior year when we went to the TOC. However, this doesn't mean I'm just a K hack - I enjoy a good DA/case debate sometimes even more than K debates. Please just read whatever you're good at.
 * For LD:**
 * Short Version:**

Rules of debate - don't clip cards or fake ev, don't be racist/sexist Not Rules of debate - having to read a plan text (I'm down for a good FW debate tho)

Also jokes about Jason Russell will earn you a speaker point boost, even if they're bad jokes.


 * The Long Part/Details:**

You do you. I'm always down to judge a FW vs K aff debate, or even a K on K debate. Don't expect me to automatically lean towards the K aff side of things just because of my high school arg choice, I'm pretty neutral on this debate.
 * K affs:**

I went for FW a decent amount against K affs contrary to popular belief. I also had to answer it all the time on the aff which means I have a pretty good understanding of the debate. Try to make FW interact with the aff, if you win that FW turns the aff I will snicker silently as a sign my ballot neg :P. Topical versions are probably necessary.
 * FW: **

I read them a lot, I like them. Don't read them just because I did, read them because they're a dope arg that you're good at. Alternative and link work is crucial, it has to go beyond "we reject cap and so we solve".
 * Ks: **

I am just as down for T against policy affs as I am for FW against K affs. It's a good arg, some of these affs just shouldn't exist. Persuade my as to why this is true and my ballot is yours.
 * T: **

I love a CP/DA/Case 2NR, judge kick should probably be an arg in the 2NR just in case you lose the CP but honestly if you read a specific CP while impact turning some portion of the aff that you don't solve I will be super happy and probably give you some nice speaker points in exchange for making me happy.
 * CP: **

I don't care, if something is cheating prove it. Don't really have a leaning, debate it.
 * Theory: **


 * Taken from Addie's wiki bc I got tired:**

tech > truth you cannot clip cards you must flash/show your evidence to your opponents speech times you cannot text or communicate otherwise with anyone who is not your partner during the round you cannot steal prep debater-directed sexist/racist/prejudiced speech or behavior is never acceptable
 * Things I think are rules of debate: **

whether or not you are topical using the internet to look up what the hell that weird K word means (is ok) being nice to your opponents (tho you will lose speaker points) being nice to me (tho I'll like you more if you are) what you choose to do with your speech/prep/CX time
 * Things I do not think are rules of debate: **