Kasibhatla,+Sachin

**Sachin Kasibhatla**

**Background** Alpharetta 2016 Case Western 2020

**Quick overview** I have predispositions

**Generic** 1. Please be respectful, we do debate because we think it’s a fun educational activity and being disrespectful makes it not fun or as educational. Please note that there is a difference between being assertive and being disrespectful. I love it when people are assertive and I encourage everyone to do so. 2. Tech > truth – however don’t abuse it and read something stupid like time cube and expect me to vote on it just because the other team dropped it or something.

**DA’s** 1. I love DAs, especially politics 2. Impact calc is important as explained above. Impact calc that turns the internal link of the other impact are the best. So generic turns the case like “oh war turns the environment because of nuclear war” is not a good turns case analysis. 3. Uniqueness from the last decade is greatly appreciated.

**Politics** 1. I think politics is a VERY evidence heavy. I will not be on any email chain as I would much rather flow evidence comparison that reading evidence. I think reading evidence should only be a last resort. 2. Intrinsicness – I actually really like intrinsicness debates. I think you need an interpretation for who I am. Tell me why it's reciprocal and a fair interp etc. Education standards are nice. If you have fully read and understood this wiki, you can begin your 2NR/2AR with the words “according to the prophecy” to gain .3 extra speaker points. 3. I like big framing things like UQ frames the direction of the link or the other way around. But don’t just say that, explain what that means.

**Kritiks** 1. I'm a fan of my neolib and security kritiks. Not a huge fan of most kritiks other than those 2, but I’ll still listen and weigh them. 2. I have no predisposition of who I am as a judge, if you have warranted analysis as to what I should be as a judge then I'll buy it. However, please know that I do tend to weigh the aff. 3. PLEASE focus on the link debate as it is the most important part of the kritik. I want link analysis to be SPECIFIC TO THE AFF. A good rule of thumb on kritiks is whoever talks about the aff more usually wins the debate. 4. I dislike 2NC’s that start off spewing 'k tricks'-- e.g. if I hear 'fiat is illusory,' 'serial policy failure,' and/or the Kappeler card in ten seconds

**Topicality** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px;">1. I love T debates – make sure you explain why the negative/affirmative vision of debate is bad and vice versa. I think you should do evidence comparison on whose interp is best. I default to competing interpretations unless told to do otherwise. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px;">2. I would much rather see impacts on T that are outside a debate round – so fairness and education is good and all but explain how it affects debaters outside of rounds, AKA advocacy skills, creativity etc.

1. Pretty neutral on conditionality, 2 condo is pretty standard. Don’t really mind if they contradict either as long as the neg doesn’t make the cross applications that the aff says. 2. Most of the time it’s a reason to reject the arg.
 * Theory **

**CP’s** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px;">Counterplans gotta be competitive. This means I don’t like counterplans that compete off of certainty or process counterplans at all really. These are pretty abusive.

**<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Calibri Light',sans-serif;">Case ** <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">1. Love this so much. Do some research and make it specific. NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING is better when you embarrass the aff team in CX, because YOU did research on THEIR aff. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2. I'd rather hear internal link debating than generic impact D only.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I do not tolerate death good arguments.