Nanavati,+Sunay

Sunay Nanavati

Affiliation: Westwood HS

Debated LD at Westwood for 4 years, graduated in 2015. Qualified to the TOC my senior year. Now coach LD for Westwood.

people i agree with: rodrigo

LD:
I’m cool with it, please please don’t suck Slow on tags and analytics I’ll call clear a reasonable amount of times, but if im glaring at you ive given up
 * Speed**

ye
 * Policy args (Plans, CPs, Das)**

I like em. Go for it. If I can’t understand the argument I won’t vote on it, but I will call for the cards before I make that assessment. I’m familiar with common K lit, but beyond that slow down and explain Prefer to see specific over generic links If you read a separate role of the ballot/judge, do interaction between the one that is implicit (or explicit) in your opponents position
 * Ks**

default to competing interps, if you go for reasonability, give me a threshold my take on RVIs is largely situational, but I am generally in favor (esp for aff in LD) really low standards for responses to bad theory I like nuanced theory interpretations Fairness is an internal link If you can win with a voter of fun ill give you 30 speaks
 * Theory**

//Theory v K:// -contextualize arguments for why fairness affects your ability to engage the K to the specific round- avoid making the argument generically -theory seems to be more of a side constraint to the K; if the critical rotb goes conceded, I will assume that its the form of education that the shell aims to maximize

Knock yourself out Tell me why its important
 * Performance**


 * Skep** [|– ill be skeptical of you]

varies tournament to tournament clarity and efficiency are probably the most important I wont punish your speaks for bad strategic decisions (I know its hard to adapt strategically when you aren’t familiar with your judge i.e. some local judges might down you for not extending a cp, whereas others will be upset when you go for everything instead of collapsing), but Ill reward you if I like your strat Higher speaks if you end speeches early
 * Speaks**

They are important but honestly, im probably not going to be the judge that downs you because you didn’t (for example) fully extend a warrant out of the internal link in a disad Lenient on aff extensions, but ill hold the 2nr to the same standard of extensions as the 1ar (esp if you’ve already made time skew compensation args in the 1ac, open to reasons why I shouldn’t)
 * Extensions**


 * Etc**

-please don’t impact turn anthro -default to comparative worlds, youre gonna have to do work to convince me otherwise -cx is binding -ill reasonably evaluate embedded clash -you get structural skew compensation once; afterwards I assume its rectified -the underview shouldn’t be most of the aff -dislike AFC; you can tell me AEC is different but I wont believe you -you should have a way for your opponent to see your case: pass pages / flash

Be engaging, jokes are a plus Sass is fun

PF:
Honestly the above should probably give you a reasonable idea of how I judge

A few specifics for PF

only make framework arguments if theyll actually affect the way I evaluate the round, for example the //lives v value to life debate:// -seems to happen in every PF round, and usually one team is substantively ahead on both anyway -don’t know why the two are mutually exclusive

Overviews are cool until they turn into line by lines If that’s the case for yours, skip it and just go down the flow

You can go fast, but don’t spread if your opponents aren’t okay with it- if you win ill vote for you, but you probably wont love your speaks

For theory I will default to reasonability and drop the arg- just explain if there is abuse

Speaks -will usually be high (the speaks I mean) -be engaging, jokes are a plus -sass: don’t hold back