Sheth,+Pranav

I have a background in CX and LD. At the end of the day, I prefer to make my decision at the impact level. With that being said, you have a good chance of getting my ballot with good speaks if you do evidence/analytic comparison, weighing, impact calc, and essentially, write my ballot for me. What that means is, explain the different layers of the debate, what comes first, where can I make my decision.


 * Speed:** Always **slow down for tags and authors**. No matter who is flowing, the faster you go the more will be missed. I can handle most speed, but please **BE CLEAR**. Most of the time, speed isn't the problem, but it's clarity. You can go as fast as you want if clarity is really superior. I find extremely high pitched spreading annoying and hard to understand. You're supposed to sound relatively the same as if you were speaking at a normal pace but just faster. **On a scale of 1-10, I prefer 7.**


 * Framework:** I don't default to a value criterion structure. If you're a real framework heavy debater, you probably don't want me as a judge. However, if I am judging you, and you are going real heavy on framework, I prefer you to slow down and explain how it functions. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments.


 * CPs:** They're cool. I don't really don't have any predispositions towards the status. Make sure there is some sort of net benefit or some advantage over the aff otherwise I don't really see a reason to vote on the CP. If the CP is not competitive I'm basically evaluating two affs. I don't view potential abuse as abuse. With that being said, I don't mind CP theory but I really don't think I'll vote on it, if there is no actual abuse. You're more than welcome to try and change my mind. Slow down for the CP text, and make sure it's thought out. Poorly worded CPs can lead to the aff garnering an advantage with how they choose to answer it.


 * DAs:** Run them! I have always preferred these when debating since I don't have to do much work on the framework level. I don't mind if you run multiple DAs whether it's LD or CX. I really think handling DAs you haven't blocked out with evidence is still possible with impact calc. Even if you provide counter evidence, I still expect you to do impact calc and explain how I should vote.


 * Theory:** I default to competing interps. Theory debates can get muddled real quickly so I prefer you slow down. I don't like it when debaters run theory when they don't know how to handle certain arguments. If I think you're trying to get a cheap win, you won't get my ballot and I will penalize your speaks. I do understand, sometimes theory may be necessary if there is actual abuse and it's totally acceptable to do what you must. Except, when your opponent runs a CP, a CPs Bad shell won't work. I'm interested in voting issues and I expect them to be answered. Don't expect a warrantless one line "X is a voter for Y and Z" to be sufficient. Finally, I prefer reject the arg. You would have to go out of your way to do something really stupid for me to buy reject the team/debater.


 * T:** T and theory aren't the same thing so don't refer to T as theory *cough*LDers*cough*. If there is actual abuse, go ahead and run it. I feel hesitant voting on T, most of the time since the aff is topical. People don't go out of their way to not be topical. If there is actual abuse, make sure you explicitly answer the standards. If I feel you're using T as a time suck I won't be happy camper. "T is a voter for fairness and education" why? Usually this isn't a problem in LD but I expect clear articulated reasons if the debate boils down to that.


 * K Affs/Ks:** If you're gonna be reading really dense K lit, please slow down. I don't read the literature so I need time processing the argument. If the aff runs something critical, I expect the neg to do more than just run framework. Engage and explicitly answer the arguments along with framework. I like really specific links to the aff rather than the topic. Res Ks better explain specifically how the actions of the aff link. I feel debaters get caught up with the jargon too much and that sometimes leads to confusion not only amongst debaters but the adjudicator as well. With that being said, epistemology, ontology, methodology, and all the other -ologies, etc. need an explanation with the relevance of the debate. In regards with performance, I'm not against it like most judges. I actually find these debates entertaining, but just have a compelling framework. If you do this process right, you can expect my ballot with a 30.


 * Micro-politics/Narratives****:** Alright, time to break the ice. Contrary to most judges, I'm actually pretty open to these types of positions. I just prefer to be given a compelling framework on how to evaluate the round. I respect these types of debaters, but at the end of the day this is a competition and I need to make a decision. Even if I don't vote for you, it does not mean your message wasn't heard.


 * Extensions:** Clear claim, warrant, impact is obviously necessary along with some sort of analytics later in the debate how this functions and how I evaluate it.


 * Crystallization:** Back when I debated, I wasn't really good at this. Rather, I liked to go for as much as I could. I do feel that the debate should boil down to certain issues so it's easier for me as a judge and good for you regarding speaks.


 * What NOT to run:**
 * 1) AFC:** Yeah, I won't vote on it.


 * 2) Sand-bagging:** This applies to CX, but yeah...don't.


 * 3) I WILL NOT VOTE ON MORALLY REPUGNANT ARGUMENTS.** (Ex. Rape good, racism good, genocide good, holocaust justified)


 * Speaker Points:** The way I give points will depend on the tournament level. You can certainly expect 30s at local tournaments, but not really at state and national level tournaments. On a .5 scale, I'll average a 28.5. Humor is always a plus. +.1 for every time you make me laugh.

29.5 - 30: :) You don't suck. 29 - 29.5: You'll be in late out rounds of the tournament. 28.5 - 29: You should break. 28 - 28.5: Average, but you have a good chance at breaking. 27.5 - 28: You aight. 26 - 27.5: :( Below 26: You pissed me off.