Priyadarshini,+Manisha

I enter the round as a judge with the mentality that the debate round is whatever debaters make it. Tablarasa if you will. Let me know if I should adhere to a resolution or not (if there isn't clash here, I'll default to traditional/what ever framework was set and conceded). Let me know how I should evaluate impacts, do I care about time frame/magnitude of nuclear war scenarios or am I looking at real world structural violence or even abuse within the round? I'm open minded to all arguments whether you're running a topical aff, K aff, K's, DA's, CP's, structural args, theory, etc. My bottom line for all these positions is the analysis of links and impacts or impacting out that is being done - how does it interact with your opponents arguments and why should it matter more? So impact it out, impact it out, impact it out. I default to my flow unless told otherwise within round - if the traditional style of flowing is bad for education let me know how I should change it and why. I like to listen to cross ex but won't apply it to the flow unless instructed to do so otherwise. Speaks: I really just default to whoever was most persuasive 30-29.5 first place speaker award worthy 28.5-29.4 speaker award worthy 27.5-28.4 Average  A little about my background for your curiosity: I'm a second year varsity debater for Los Rios on the NDTCEDA circuit. I have experience with both traditional styles of debating as well as more performative/critical styles of debating which is what I engage in presently.

At the end of the day, this is your activity and you have the opportunity to come talk about whatever you'd like to talk about - don't cater to me, let me learn about what you're passionate about.