Kukreja,+Amit

Hey! I’m Amit and I debated for Newark Science in Newark, NJ for four years.

-- If it helps, I debated on the local NJ Circuit, the national circuit, and was a member of the USA Debate Team. I competed in policy my senior year at one national circuit tournament and at NJ States. For the better part of three years, I mainly did LD. Currently I am the co-director of Debatedrills.

I'm going to be extremely honest right now, I get terribly bored during debates. Like, bored to the point where I can tune out. If you are not keeping me entertained in the debate, I'm going to barely care and probably not vote for you. What does it mean to be entertained? At a base level, it means stand up when you talk, fluctuate your voice when your saying something important, ask important questions in CX, and dont mumble into your laptop or flow during your speeches. Debate is about theater in my opinion even more then it is about substance. You need to be persuasive and I really have no sympathy if your going to walk into a round and not even attempt to care -- if that's the case I will probably not care about my flow or the ballot.
 * MAJOR UPDATE PRINCETON 2017*

I guess I'll start off by saying I really enjoyed debate while I was debating. I loved the ability to argue about something that I cared about, or if it wasn't something I cared about then rather just something that was strategic in the "game" aspect of debate. I don't like to have a monolithic view of what debate is or can be. It is up to you all to determine that for me and I'll evaluate the round based on how it is framed for me.

I like these types of arguments. Have specific links Explain why the alt matters Go for presumption Do Impact framing
 * Kritiks:**

I like really cool CPs with net benefits. Have net benefits.
 * CPs**


 * DA's**

These are fine as well, please explains turns case arguments and have uq


 * Theory**

If there's some abuse I'm fine with evaluating theory, I don't really enjoy friv nonsense

nope
 * Tricks**

Other than that, I appreciate the technical aspects of debate as well. WEIGHING is extremely important to me and can be the nexus question to determine who wins a debate. This doesn't mean you need 5 subpoints under an argument explaining why it outweighs (though I love this type of stuff) but it does mean you need to explain why impacts are prioritized over other ones and what it means to win why an argument can out frame, preclude, etc. other arguments.

Other than that, if you have any questions email me at akukreja227@gmail.com
 * Speaker points** -- Being funny, being passionate, making the other debater look really bad, using CX to your advantage, weighing - that increases speaks.

"I ain't tryna say they conceited, but they conceded alot..."