Singh,+Nikpreet

Quality > Quantity. Love K's but that means you have to explain the argument well. FW/T debates are cool, but I need proven abuse and a deep standards debate. I have an easier time voting for theoretical FW against high theory affs, otherwise you'll have an easier time winning with a substantive shell. 2AR/2NR needs to have clash, weigh arguments for me, tell me what I should be evaluating on my ballot. CX is binding. Flashing isn't prep. Don't say anything offensive or I'll drop you. Don't be an ass to me or your opponents or your speaks will suffer. My face is usually pretty expressive during rounds. Other than that, have a good time, I'm fairly lenient.
 * TL;DR **

I debated for four years at Chandler HS, AZ (3 CX/1 LD). When I did policy I was the 2A/1N. As the 1N I usually always took case and the K, which throughout debate for me was usually Nietzsche or Marx. I've read like two policy affs but I've had most of my success on K affs. I read an Islamophobia aff my senior year, so I really enjoy debaters who properly use the debate space as a space for empowerment and growth. I'm a pretty versatile judge; I've gone both 11 off against policy affs and 1 off K against policy affs. My go to against K affs was Marx. You'll probably wanna pref me if you like going for K's.
 * Background Info **

27.7 - 28.2 = Mediocre. 28.3 - 28.7 = Good. 28.8 - 29.5 = Very Good. 29.5 - 29.8 = Impressed. Be aggressive, but don't be mean. I'll give an extra speaker point if you make fun of these people: Tanzil Chowdhury, Manav Sevak, Malhar Patel, or Rohit Rajan. Again, if you say anything really offensive you get 0 speaks and dropped. Don't make me cringe by forcing yourself to be funny and shit.
 * Speaker Points **

Need a good analysis of how the perm resolves the net benefit of the CP. Consult CP's are bad. Neg needs to explain the competitiveness of the CP well. Theory is usually insubstantial unless it's dropped. CP cards should be really good, and there needs to be comparative analysis from aff and neg. I enjoy PICs. Impact scenario needs to be well explained. Any DA works for me, but there needs to be a lot of link/internal link work done to win it. I'll get mad if you just read an OV and then a bunch of cards on case and move on. Use the cards from the 1AC on the line by line and articulate your thoughts and read new cards when necessary. If I'm not able to explain your argument by the end of the 2AR, then you didn't do a good job. My threshold for case negs is lower, a bunch of cards on case is fine but if you go for case they also need to be explained well in the block. This is what I spent most of debate doing. I think teams do best when they read affs that are close to them. That being said, I'm not going to vote you up just because you read my favorite K, if you just vomit a bunch of buzz words without explanation I'm not going to like the argument and I'm going to give the other team a lot of leeway in their rebuttals. If you're able to explain your aff powerfully and concisely, I'm down to listen to anything. I enjoy smart 2AR tricks. For the neg, the same explanation standards apply. Tell me what the alt looks like, and I won't kick it for you if you're going for it as a case turn in the 2NR. My pet peeve is when teams read high theory and don't explain it well against a team reading an aff based off of personal advocacy. I like these debates in a situation where they are executed correctly. This means I need to know why T/FW is a better model of debate than what the aff offers. I'm probably not going to vote on potential abuse. K affs should provide substantial DA's to the negs interpretation. Know the difference between substantive and theoretical framework (state engagement key vs. debate needs rules), and explain your standards accordingly. I default to competing interpretations. Sure. In addition to utilizing it as a voting issue, I like teams that couple their theory with other arguments to justify/extrapolate key arguments to give them the edge on contested issues. I have a high threshold on using theory as a reason to vote aff/neg; give me a compelling reason (more than just a blip) why I should reject the team. In most cases, it's just a reason to reject an argument but if you do enough work on it, you most definitely may be able to convince me otherwise. Make sure you give some example of abuse, i.e. specific models of debate/in-round. Basically unless you drop it I won't really consider voting on it. I don't like disclosure theory.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Specifics **
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Counterplans **
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Disads **
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Case **
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Kritiks/Non-Traditional Affs **
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">T/FW **
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Theory **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">At the end of the day, this is all just competitive fast words, chill out and have some fun with it. You can catch ya boi on FaceBook or @ nikpreet45@gmail.com