Patel,+Nisarg

9 years of policy debate experience. Currently at Harvard, previously coached Chandler High School and Hamilton High School (AZ).

__**Quick Notes:**__
 * Speed is fine. Distinguish between tags and cards.
 * Tech > Truth.
 * Don't read stupid arguments.
 * "Extend XYZ" is not an argument. Give clear explanations and contextualizations of prior evidence.
 * Tag-team CX is fine, don't dominate your partner.
 * I don't count flashing as prep unless I notice you stealing prep (probably also not great for your speaks or street cred ).

__**Speaker points:**__
 * Be aggressive, but kind and pleasant. Just because you have X number of bids doesn't mean you're excused from being respectful. Don't be condescending.
 * I will pay attention to CX and reward fantastic ones.
 * Clash. Unfortunately, many high school rounds come down to "who dropped what?" rather than "who debated best?". I'd rather hear you engage the other team's arguments rather than blindly blaze through a prewritten overview.
 * On that note, I've found that hearing large prewritten overviews is rarely helpful.
 * Jokes poking fun at the Seattle Seahawks, Los Angeles Lakers, the University of Arizona, and good puns are a plus--but don't overdo it.

__**Arguments:**__
 * Case** --- I highly value research and love seeing well-researched case debates. Some of the best debates I've judged have come down to nuances in policy implementation, internal link chains, and fights over root causes. I like strategic 1ACs that pre-empt frequently encountered negative arguments and continue to leverage their case throughout the debate. That being said, the 2AR is not a constructive. I won't flow new arguments or ones not developed in the 1AR.


 * Disadvantages** --- Great. The more specific, the better, but I still love a good Politics debate. Quality over quantity: If it’s in the 1NC, it should be worth going for in the 2NR.


 * Counterplans** --- Great. Most of my senior year in high school was spent cutting case-specific PICs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're theoretically legitimate and I can be convinced if they are/aren't in a debate round. I don't think 99% of consult CPs are legitimate (or any CP with an artificial net benefit, for that matter).


 * Kritiks** --- Cool (if you know what you're doing). Don't assume that name-dropping a dead German guy means I'll automatically vote for you. Assume I don't know the literature beforehand and give me a case-specific link story and why I should care.

// Things I've seen in __good__ critical debates include, but are not limited to: // __ NEG __
 * 2NC/1NR link contextualization specific to the aff.
 * A simple, but effective alternative overview (if you also claim to solve/turn the aff, tell me how in the context of the 1AC). Why does it solve your impacts? Why does it solve/turn those of the 1AC?
 * Impact comparison in the context of framework
 * Framework: Why shouldn't I weigh the 1AC against the alternative?

__AFF__
 * Permutations should be explained in the context of the K (At the least in the 1AR + 2AR). If the 2AR is solely "extend perm do both", you're fighting an uphill battle.
 * Some negative teams are pretty terrible at explaining their alternative. Win a substantial risk that the alt doesn't solve and/or a strong link turn and the ballot's probably yours.


 * Topicality** --- T should probably be all 5 minutes of the 2NR . There needs to be a reason that your impact is a significant hindrance to the debate (e.g. "we lose the spending DA" isn't a substantial enough reason to vote neg because it's a terribly generic argument). Affirmative's don't necessarily need to win that their interp is best for debate, but they do need to win a framework that allows me to believe that substantial defense is enough to vote aff.


 * Theory** --- I appreciate when teams utilize theory to justify/extrapolate key arguments to give them an edge on contested flows. I have a high threshold on using theory as a reason to vote aff/neg; give me a compelling–more than just a blip–reason why I should vote for you.


 * Non-traditional/Performance Affirmatives** --- While these are fine, I do believe these should be somewhat related to the resolution. Arguing that "framework is oppressive" isn't a compelling argument on its own. In order for debate to function properly, there needs to be some point of stasis that debaters can come to. That doesn't necessarily need to be USFG or policy action, but it does need to be defined (hence the framework debate).