Deb,+Antareeksh


 * Antareeksh Deb**
 * Class of 2018**
 * Chattahoochee High School**


 * General**
 * I generally prefer tech over truth, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to vote on ASPEC if its dropped
 * I try to stick to my flow as much as possible, and will only look at cards if there is equal contestation on certain arguments
 * Clarity is more important than speed
 * Don't let anything I say in the rest of my philosophy deter you from reading certain arguments, debating what you are best at is important and will probably maximize your speaker points.
 * Don't be rude


 * Affirmative**
 * I prefer that affirmatives have a plan text topical to the resolution, but I'm willing to hear anything. If you are reading a K aff with no plan text I prefer it be centered around the issues of the resolution.
 * I like it when 2A's have embedded clash in their line-by-line. That will get you really good speaks.


 * Disadvantages**
 * As much as I love the politics DA, I prefer DA's that are specific to each aff and talk about the nuances of the aff (especially since every generic DA can probably be non-uniqued because of past engagement with China
 * I think that there can be 0% risk of a DA
 * I don't necessarily think that uniqueness controls the direction of the link.
 * Politics Theory: I don't think aff arguments on this are persuasive and I think that your time is much better spent on answering the substance of the DA
 * Keep overviews short and sweet


 * Counterplans**
 * Counterplans should be functionally competitive with the affirmative
 * I like to see Ks as net-benefits to the CP
 * Delay CPs are bad and are probably abusive


 * Kritiks**
 * I prefer a middle of the ground framework; I think its best for debate
 * Links should be specific to the plan and nuanced - I don't like the generic security K
 * I love it when teams re-cut affirmative evidence and use it as links for the K
 * K-tricks are a must in the block
 * I am not that knowledgeable in K literature, so you will need to clearly explain to me what your link, impact, and alternative are.


 * Topicality**
 * I really like topicality debates.
 * I think that one of the most important parts of topicality is the interpretation. The negative really needs to explain their interpretation and explain why the affirmative doesn't meet. I think that T cards specific to the affirmative really help.
 * I don't really like the T-QPQ/No QPQ debates. I generally think that affirmatives shouldn't be QPQ, but I would rather hear debates with more specific interpretations to the plan text
 * Topicality should be debated kind of like a DA


 * Theory**
 * Conditionality bad is probably one of the few theory arguments that I will vote on, other theory arguments I think i should just reject instead of voting the team down