Chowdhury,+Tanzil

the tldr: i'm fine with pretty much anything, debated a mix of k and policy in hs, won't do work for you, explain your obscure k lit well to me pls, don't do anything explicitly racist/sexist/etc. or ill ruin your speaks/drop u

I WILL NOT DISCLOSE UNTIL YOU PUT THE ROOM BACK LIKE YOU FOUND IT. Background: i debated @ chandler high (go wolvez) for four years and currently debate at arizona state (the university rated number #1 in innovation by the US News World Report, ahead of Stanford and MIT). I am also a member of the UC Berkeley Memes for Edgy Teens facebook group, ask me for an invite. I've pretty much always been a 1A/2N. Around 60% of the affs I read in high school were non-topical K affs (though never anything that was high theory), and the rest were a mix of middle-of-the-road and straight up policy affs. In high school I usually took T, DA's, CP's etc. in the 2NC and usually gave my partner the K, but that's the opposite of what i'm doing in college now. Against K affs i was the guy (and still kinda am) that always went for Framework x Cap, and against policy affs i went like 7-off. Basically, just a lot of proof that im good w everything. Speaker Points: I start at a 27.7 and I go up and down from there. I'll never go below a 26 unless you do something that's either breaking rules, being ridiculously mean, being an asshole to me (i swear to GOD if you get pissy with me after the round I will be vengeful 😊), etc. For speaker points bonuses you can do one of three things: 1) Make a good, contextual reference to bob dylan and/or young thug, 2) make a good joke about one or more of the following people: izak dunn's mustache, malhar patel, manav sevak, nikpreet singh, alyssa hoover, elyse kats, or rohit rajan, 3) follow me on twitter and retweet the GOLD i tweet on a daily basis (information below). DA's: Anything goes, not much to say here. Probably won't vote for a DA by itself (i did this once and it was a bad idea) unless you have some real good turns case arguments. CP's: I read a PIC in high school that replaced "USFG" with "United States politicians, bureaucrats, and military personnel". I'm okay with any on the CP front, just explain it well.

K's: I like K's, as long as you explain them well, especially your more obscure/high theory-ish ones. Link explanation is TANTAMOUNT. Generally it's pretty true for me that if you're winning the link debate you're going to win the K flow as a whole, so emphasis there is good. Basically, if it's clear to me that your link is the same generic link you read against everything, and you dont do any contextual explanation work, I'm gonna have a hard time voting for you. My biggest pet peeve about K debates though (and about a few other judges in particular) is that I WILL NOT DROP THE ALT FOR YOU. If you get to the 2NR and you want to go for the K as a case turn, please explicitly kick out of the alt. If you do not, I weigh the round as Alt v. Aff, and if you do like 10 seconds of alt explanation at the bottom of the 2NR, well, you lose. The 2NR is all about decisions, so please make a decision with how you want the K to look at the end of the debate, and make that decision clear to me. T: T's cool. T in my mind is the same as any other argument just with different terminology, meaning that the violation is just a link and the standards are just impacts. Slow down on uncarded things/tags though, just so I can keep my flow clear.

Framework: "When I walked into my first debate practice, they didn't hand me a rule book" - LaToya Green. Debate does not inherently have any rules, so theoretical framework is just an argument trying to convince me as a judge to adopt a rule for the debate round. If you don't do a good job telling why debate should be constrained to whatever definition you want me to constrain it to, I will default to the interpretation that debate has no rules and the aff will stand. Know the difference between theoretical framework arguments and substantive ones (theoretical being things like fairness, decisionmaking, simluation good, policy education good and substnative being policy debate good for x movement of the aff, institutional engagement k2 solving aff etc), and clearly delineate them so your framework arguments as a whole are cohesive. All that being said, if the aff doesn't make sense to me, my threshold for voting on framework goes up, but probably don't count on that as a way to win framework. Personally, I prefer the susbtantive framework args, especially if you do some tricky stuff with cross-apps to case or with TVA's/CP's. I'll listen to anything though.

Theory: Generally cool with theory. I was a shit in high school and didnt put anything on the wiki (though i do think it's a source of competitive inequity between small/large schools) so I'll probably listen to your wiki/disclosure theory but i'll have a high threshold on it. I've voted on severance before (i hated myself for it), but that's because the team just didn't answer it. So yeah, answer theory, and if your answer is sufficient ill probably not vote you down on it.

Other: debate is meaningless in the end, so please don't take it too seriously and get too competitive. the only bad experiences i had in debate were when people thought they were superior for whatever reason and let it show, don't be that person. it's a place to learn and have fun with some cool people, so i try to maintain that in every round that im judging. have a good time, this is a rewarding activity regardless of if you win or not. I don't write much on my ballots but I give very thorough commentary after the round and I want you to ask me questions and write down the things that I say. I'm also always open to discuss anything (debate-related and otherwise) with you, find me on facebook, slide into my DMs (and follow me on Twitter) at @tchy98, or email me at tachowd1@asu.edu.