Kambhampaty,+Sahil

I judge CX debate and my judging philosophies are as follows:

Framework
Framework is by far the most important thing to consider in a debate round. Note, this does NOT mean you need to have a specific framework argument or framework flow, but it does mean that you need understand which framework your arguments operate under and how it interacts with your opponent's framework. If no framework is specified I tend to default to a utilitarian framework unless you read an argument that implies some other framework. To be clear, what I mean by "framework" is the set of values or conditions that we seek to maximize. Essentially, your framework will be the lens through which I view the arguments presented and through which I weigh the importance of each argument. For example, if you are the neg team and you run some DA that argues that the aff plan will lead to nuclear war and extinction, it seems obvious that this is a clear negative impact to the aff plan because we tend to default to a framework that values human life and seeks to preserve it, but if the aff team argues that preserving human life is not important and that some other value is more important then extinction might not be such a bad thing or even anything important. Essentially your framework will tell me why your argument is important by laying the basic premises that are be assumed true in order to "frame" the rest of the arguments. Because of the nature of framework, i.e. the fact that framework is the initial premise that everything else is based on and therefore not really able to be "justified" by other arguments, framework debates can get messy and frankly pretty stupid. This isn't usually a problem in "policy" type rounds where both teams generally agree on a utilitarian framework but in a round with kritiks or other types of framework disputes the best way to argue framework is to either show how your argument wins in both frameworks (as in both the framework you prefer and the framework that your opponent presents) or show that your framework is actually better at achieving the values of your opponent's framework and maybe even that your framework is necessary to achieve the values of your opponent's framework. If you can't do either of those things, then the framework debate usually boils down to two teams who say that we should inherently value different things without any real way to justify why valuing those things is better. That leaves the decision up to my discretion as a judge which is entirely arbitrary and not an ideal way to evaluate the winner of a debate round. All of this is basically to say, know why your argument inherently matters and be able to defend it in a logical way if your opponent tries to claim that it doesn't inherently matter. See how much I wrote about framework? It's very important to me. To add one final note: none of this means that you can't have a typical policy style round. Like I said earlier, in these types of rounds both teams tend to agree that util is the best way to go and thus arguing about framework itself is not really an issue freeing both teams to actually debate the policy issues.

Topicality/Theory
I'm not a fan of theory in general unless a team is clearly being abusive. I tend to give teams a lot of leeway to drop "voters" on fairness and other such bullshit when there's clearly no abuse. I will subscribe to the idea that reasonability is key unless you have a really kick ass reason for why it shouldn't be and I view topicality and theory as a check against very abusive strategies. That being said, theory and especially topicality are very good ways to waste your opponent's time if you think they'll bite and I don't hold it against teams who run stupid arguments as a time wasting strategy and then drop them in the rebuttals.

Disadvantages
Disadvantages are a great tool when used well. Using a DA in conjunction with a counterplan or a kritik and creating a net benefit out of it is smart, but they can be used well alone as well. An important thing to note is that if you don't do impact calculus on the DA it will be very hard to win on it because you need to explain why the DA makes the aff plan or counterplan undesirable.

Counterplans
I am a fan. CPs are great when they solve the harms of the aff but also avoid some harm that the aff plan uniquely creates (AKA net benefit). What more needs to be said?

Kritiks
I am a kritik debater at heart and I greatly appreciate an argument that can use critical theory to expose some harmful assumption that the other team makes. That being said, a boilerplate capitalism kritik or something like that will not get my vote unless it is well run with a clear link and a clear alternative that achieves solvency. It's very important to explain how the alternative solves for the impact of the K. You can't just point out that the other team links to the K and then not do any more work on it. At that point all you've done is you made an observation. You need to explain why that matters and how you avoid the harm you claim your opponent creates. If you run a kritik well I will love you but if you run it poorly I will hate you. Also remember that framework comes into play with kritiks and it needs to be kept in mind as you run Ks.

Other Stuff
Finally, it should be noted that you can win a round as neg entirely with on case arguments if those arguments prove that the status quo is better than the world of the plan. Essentially what a round comes down to is proving that the world you advocate for provides a better outcome than the world of your opponent. Remember to be respectful to your opponents (and to your partner).