Ramakrishnan,+Varsha

I debated policy for 4 years in high school, 4 years in college at Michigan State and am in my 4th year of coaching. I tend to evaluate things in an offense/defense paradigm although there's an NZP that I could be persuaded on "zero risk".

TOPICALITY
For topicality, I tend to evaluate on what's the best interpretation for debate (not necessarily what is true in the real world) unless told otherwise. If the T is particularly undeveloped in the 1nc, I'm lenient towards allowing new answers in the 1ar. I am amenable to the reasonability vs. competing interpretations debate, but would default to the latter.

DISADVANTAGES
Pretty straightforward so I don't have much to add. I default to uniqueness controls the direction of the link but could be persuaded otherwise. 2Ns underutilize disad turns the case and overuse the formulaic "we outweigh because a) magnitude, b) timeframe and c) probability" overviews. I think it'd be better to pick one to say why it short-circuits consideration of the others.

COUNTERPLANS
... I like them. I don't think the CP has to solve all of case or even has to not link to the net benefit. As long as the solvency deficit is outweighed by a risk of a link, I would vote on the CP. Most CP-specific question you have are probably answered in the theory section.

__Theory __
Generally speaking, I am pretty heavily in the camp of "reject the argument, not the team" for theory other than conditionality. I think theory debates need to have a clearly defined link and impact. I am still forming my opinion on this but I think the magnitude of the link should affect how judges evaluate the "reject the argument" vs. "reject the team" debates. If there is a smaller link (a perm that severs a 1ac representation), that should be punished differently than a larger link (a perm that severs a word from the plan or aff conditionality).

In some ways, I am pretty neg leaning on theory -- I am okay with international fiat, multiple actor fiat, the states CP and conditionality. I don't necessarily believe that my role as a judge needs to have a real world parallel.

But I also have my aff biases -- I think that anything that competes off normal means and claims to result in the plan is gut-check bad. This applies to consult, condition, threaten, reg negs, referendums, etc. In terms of resulting in the plan, it also applies to Floating PIKs. That said, I have voted neg on those counterplans more frequently than affirmative -- but affs have rarely gone for theory in the 2ar.

I think the literature base is a good test for how fair a CP is. The reason I tend to think CPs that result in the plan are bad is because although there might be a literature base for consulting Japan, there is not a literature base for doing so over the plan (and almost certainly not prior, binding consultation). I would be more open to a PIC out of a word in the plan with specific solvency for replacing the word and evidence for why that debate is educational / matters. This is partly because of the solvency advocate question and partly because of counterplan competition.

Quick aside on conditionality. Unless explicitly instructed otherwise, I default to assuming only one world in the 2NR. This means that if the 2NR extends a disad and CP and the 2AR defeats the CP, I will not automatically evaluate the status quo vs. case. I'll consider it if that contingency is in the 2NR.

CRITIQUES
Also fine. I think that you should split up the permutations when you answer them. Theory concerns in theory section above.

__**Performance **__
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I'm open to performance teams, but you've gotta defend a plan or topical advocacy or something. "We're a discussion of the topic, not a topical discussion" is not that persuasive to me. That said, if I somehow end up judging you and you're obviously not topical, then you should focus the framework debates on the impact, not the link. "We meet their interpretation" is many times unwinnable for the aff, but "our education outweighs their fairness / education claims" is more persuasive.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">MISCELLANEOUS

 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Cross-ex. Has the potential to be both the best and worst parts of a debate. I flow relevant cross-ex answers
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ethical charges. If you are going to make an ethical charge against the other team, you should stake the round on it.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I evaluate a conceded argument as a 100% truth claim. So if you drop an add-on for the whole debate, I won't call for the Aff ev at the end of the round, decide it's crappy and vote that the risk of a link to the add-on is bad. However, that doesn't mean that if you drop something you are screwed -- you can still mitigate it by making comparative impact claims, timeframe distinctions, etc. On a related note, if you double turn yourself and the other team concedes the double turn, it's a non-starter with me to then indict your own ev to try to get out of the double turn.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">For paperless teams: I don't take prep for jumping speeches unless it's taking an unreasonably long time. You should provide jump drives and / or a viewing computer for the other team. If you jump them a document of 50 pages, of which you read 5 cards, I will take your prep for clarifying what cards you read. Also true if you don't mark cards until after your speech.

**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Good luck, have fun, etc. etc! **