Patel,+Sid


 * Short:** Do what you want as long as you give me a coherent story on exactly what I should vote on. This means doing impact analysis. With impact analysis, I don’t simply mean why you outweigh on magnitude, probability, and timeframe, but also analyzing the impacts and comparing them. Also one thing that I yet to have figured out with impact analysis is who wins if there is a small risk of a disad when it happens faster vs. a case impact that takes a long time to happen but has a greater probability. Comparing such impacts and telling me how to evaluate such impacts will help you be in a better position to win the debate. In T debates make sure you impact your standards. And with K debates make sure to tell me how your criticism interacts with the affirmative case, whether it turns case or whether it comes first. You can also win that the impacts of the K outweighs the case. I also do look at things in an offense/defense paradigm although I will vote on a zero risk of an argument. I think solid defense can go a long way. Speed is fine, just be clear. I haven't read too much literature on this topic, so clarity would be greatly appreciated. Other than that have fun and be funny. Be nice to your opponents. Although being funny will increase your speaker points, being mean will get you lower speaks. Lastly, explain your warrants. Don’t just do tagline extensions. If you have any questions before the round don’t hesitate to ask.


 * Topicality**- I do err a little towards affirmative when it comes to topicality, but not to the extent that you shouldn’t go for it if you think you are winning on it. In order to win topicality, the negative must win some risk of their offense. For example, why is Education killed through the affirmative’s structuring of the resolution and what does that mean in the context of debate. Why do they explode limits and how is that bad in the context of debate? Why should I look at competing interpretations? This form of analysis is necessary for me to vote for you. Don’t forget to impact your standards. Explain to me how you want me to evaluate topicality aka Competing Interpretations vs. Reasonability. If this is lacking then I’ll default to competing interpretations.


 * Theory-** I think Conditionality/Dispositionality are ok although I could be persuaded otherwise. I feel that debate is tough and that is exactly what makes it more challenging and fun. PICs are great. I love well researched PICs and think they create better research and since the main emphasis of debate is research, they should be allowed and seen as legitimate. I am not a huge fan of consult CPs. I think they are stupid and not real world at all, but I do feel that consult CPs can be ok depending on its specificity. 50 State FIAT is ok even though it is a bit unrealistic. All 50 states enacting the same policy seems a little unrealistic to say the least. But, its one of the core counter plans on the resolution so I am less likely to vote it down on theory. This doesn't mean you shouldn't go for theory against such a counterplan. If you think you are winning on it, then by all means go for it. International FIAT is probably ok unless proven otherwise. I don’t have a strong leaning on this issue. Other than that, I feel all counter plans must have solvency advocates to be considered legitimate.


 * Kritiks**- If you are going for some crazy kritik, don’t just assume I know what you are talking about. Good K debates are well constructed and tell a coherent story. They are more than just buzz words like Ontology comes first. Explain to me what this means. Also generic Kritik debates are bad and boring. The more specific you can get with your criticism the better your chances of winning. You can either read links that are specific to the aff or/and you can talk about the affirmative and the way they frame certain things and how that fuels into your criticism. Also, explain your alternative and what it does. Even if your alternative is to do nothing, you must demonstrate how doing nothing in the context of the debate leads to something. Also the affirmative always gets to weigh their case against the kritik unless I am told otherwise. So as the affirmative you should explain to me why case outweighs. Normally affirmative’s win with case outweighs if they have faster impacts. As the negative it is your job to tell me why the affirmative can’t access their case or why they can’t solve for case because they don’t address the root cause of the issues. You should explain to me for example why ontology or epistemology comes first or why the kritik outweighs. As the affirmative you should stay aggressive against the negative’s alternative.


 * Framework-** Needs to be explained thoroughly. Why is utilitarianism better than morality? Why do ethics come first? These are all things you need to explain and make sure to address the warrants behind your claim. I view framework as the way I am supposed to vote. Winning framework does not mean you win the debate; it just means I will evaluate the debate according to what you have told me.


 * Counterplan/Disads**- I love a good counterplan and disad throwdown. It’s the affirmative’s job to prove to me that the solvency deficit on the counter plan outweighs the risk of the disad or whatever the net benefit to the counter plan may be. I will vote on the permutation if there is a zero risk of the disad.


 * Case**- I love a good case debate whether it would be impact/link turning or if you just want to win some defense. I think the best debates to watch are the ones that focus heavily on case arguments. The best thing to watch is a debate that comes down to impact turns. That said, defense can also go a long way. Once again winning solid defense against an affirmative’s impact scenario can persuade me to assign it a zero percent risk.