Maganahalli,+Ayush

__**Background**__ Dougherty Valley High '16

__**NPDI '16 UPDATES/General Parli Guidelines**__ I'm still a little rusty on the flow and spreading, so if you intend to, just gradually speed up and I'll yell clear or slow 5 times. After you cross that line your speaks will get deducted. I've dabbled a bit in Parli but not to an extent where I can even say that I know more than a little about it. When it comes to Parli I follow the same general guidelines but I will be more lenient in general in regards to things like thresholds for responses or the abuse story on theory. It doesn't need to be as cut and dry as LD or Policy but if you are going to take things like theory or kritiks from those events then you better be prepared to defend and //explain// them properly. Don't make the round a mess (as often happens with Parli cases and the pressure of only having 20 minutes) and if the flow is clean, it should be easy to vote for you.

__**Round Rules and Guidelines**__
 * Be willing to disclose your cases or evidence at any point to me or your opponent. Whether this comes in the form of flashing, passing pages, or even reading off each other's computers during the round, it doesn't matter so long as your opponent is able to look at the evidence. If you aren't willing to show the evidence, I will not consider it within the round.
 * All cites must at least include the author's name (full name), date of publication, source, and link (if it is an online source that can be utilized by other debaters)
 * Slow down at tags and especially name of the author and date because it is easy for them to get jumbled up in the jargon. It is probably best for you to extend arguments not just by the author name but by also including the tag and some of the warrant so it's easier for me to understand where you're going with the argument.
 * All prep (making speech docs, asking questions, flashing) must be completed within prep time.
 * If there is a clear disparity between competitors within the round, please make the round educational for everyone within it.

__**Default Preferences**__
 * Theory is reason to reject the argument
 * Education > fairness
 * The "spirit" of the interpretation/theory shell will determine if there is a violation within the round
 * Theory is an issue of reasonability
 * K > Theory
 * Links of omission are not reasons for the K to link

__**Arguments**__ Let me preface this by saying I am open to almost every form of debate. The only things I am not open to are ones that make people feel uncomfortable within the round or are specifically designed to make the round much less educational/engaging. For example, if your case is obviously going to collapse to presumption or skep, then I see no reason to even begin the round. Make rounds fun and engaging for both sides instead of just doing stupid things to win the ballot.

__Util/LARP__ Fro my view, this form of debate is relatively straightforward and hard to skew unfairly without using tricks from another form of debate. These forms of debate are often the best to see clash on since debaters are more willing to engage with these more "familiar" topics but the biggest issue is the uniqueness/novelty of cards. Please do try to find resolution specific or case specific cards rather than just reusing the same old Bostrom cards.

__Philosophy/Framework__ I love reading philosophy and engaging in new worldviews but (as of right now) I'm not too well-versed in it. If you are going to ready a dense framework, epistemological case, moral case, or something along those lines, make it easy to understand in your own words. Whether the explanation comes in CX or during the case, it must come at some point, so that both your opponent and I have some way to wrap our heads around what's occurring with the round and can (at the very least) find some way to engage with the idea at all.

__K Debate__ This is the form of debate I did the most in high school, and something I think that is beautiful if done correctly. However, it can be easy to see right from wrong when it comes to this form of debate so hear are some clarifications. First, just dropping the words "prefiat" or "postfiat" doesn't mean anything unless you explain it. The K MUST BE weighed against the opponent's case and leveraged against what they have said rather than simply avoiding the debate by saying one word answers. Second, generic Ks are easier to beat back in front of me. Try to have specific evidence to the aff. Whether that comes in the form of a root cause claim, case turns, or other cards to leverage, the more specific the cards are, the more willing I'll be to buy into the K as a whole. Third, Ks ARE CONFUSING. Even I don't understand a good majority of them when I originally read them, let alone listen to them at a high velocity. Your evidence should not only be clear and very good on the subject, you should be able to explain it yourself and how it pertains to both the K as a whole and your opponent's case. This also means that you should be able to explain a K very readily during CX or during a speech so that it does not remain a confused jumble of cards and instead a coherent argument.

__Theory Debate__ Even though I didn't do much theory debate in high school, I'm fine with the argument being run. I don't have too much love for frivolous theory (the argument for fairness and education is, ironically, being used to demean those 2 values) but will let it pass in round. However, I will have a much higher threshold if the theory is clearly frivolous and is stretching for a violation on the opponent (if it is not immediately obvious that there is a violation or your interpretation is extremely specific to your opponent's case, then that's when the threshold will increase). If a theory debate does happen though, please do not throw a bunch of blippy one-line arguments at the wall, hope they stick, and expect that to suffice as sufficient arguments. Not only is it impossible for me to flow, there's no real reason that those are true arguments in that they haven't been fleshed out or explained to the point where they are credible arguments. Explain your opponent's violations but most of all explain how they violate your standards and why those standards even matter.

__Tricks__ Anything that intentionally attempts to skew the round in your favor without engaging in a true substance debate is something that should not be run in front of me. Things like 6 minutes of 1AC spikes, a case built to trigger presumption, and others are the sorts of cases I view under this light. There is no need for them in debate and while I understand that they may be a strategic way to win the round, it's (in my view) an unfair and unnecessary way to win it. I absolutely will not vote for anything along those lines.

__**Short Version:**__ Ks: 1 Theory: 2/3 Stock: 2 Util/LARP: 2/3 Tricks: 5 Philosophy: 3/4

Will be edited further for Voices '16