Nanda,+Jatin

I am a 3rd year debater from Alpharetta Highschool.

Here's just some of my opinions on a few arguments/advice on how to debate them successfully in front of me.

Topicality I don't really default to either reasonability or competing interpretations - don't assume I do - this is a debate that needs to be had within the round. -Evidence comparison is tremendously important in terms of setting a better brightline/predictability -The neg should have a clear interpretation with a caselist of what they allow and what the aff justifies -The aff should have a clear C/I that competes with the negative's interp

Kritiks I am not tremendously well-versed in the K literature so don't assume I know everything about the many forms of Baudrillard or the specifics of Lacanian psychoanalysis - it is your job to do the explanation -Framework debates are usually a wash - tell me what policymaking first/reps first actually means - impact in terms of how I should evaluate the round. -K debates are much more persuasive when they are made specific to the aff - ignoring the aff wholeheartedly and reading generic state links won't give you much success -The aff should remember they read a 1AC for a reason - use it as a weapon.

Counterplans -If you are aff and you don't make solvency deficits you will most likely lose the debate. -I think hyper-technical counterplans aren't necessarily bad - if you can win competition, they demonstrate a good exploration of the literature. -I don't really default any way on counterplan theory - it's the affirmative job to win the theory argument, not just whine about fairness for 5 minutes.

Disads -Good disad-case debates are highly encouraged - just like any other part of the debate, focus on impact comparison. -Distinctions and framing issues are very important to help settle issues on the line-by-line - I will give you higher speaks if you settle these issues ahead of time so I don't have to call up every card. -Turns case arguments are encouraged, but aren't automatic round-winners - these need to be explained well

Case Stuff -Case debates demonstrate a great amount of research and are always full of clash - these are highly encouraged -I/l takeouts go a long way - most of the time internal link chains don't make any sense - point this out.

General -Low-risk is not no risk, but impact defense will greatly increase your chance of outweighing the case/outweighing a disad. -Clarity and emphasis are highly encouraged along with ethos moments and giant framing issues that shape my ballot.