Chari,+Pavitra


 * Pavitra Chari **
 * Northeastern University 2017 **
 * Lexington High School 2013 **

I will try and judge based on who I believe is debating better, regardless of any of the preferences below. As a side note, I haven't judged on this topic before, so don't assume I know what your argument is, and try to avoid obscure abbreviations and topic jargon because you'll probably lose me.
 * Overview **

// DON’T //
 * steal prep (I don't count prep for flashing, but keep it reasonable!)
 * clip cards - ask if you have any questions
 * be mean. assertive ≠ aggressive

// DO //
 * impact calculus. Don’t just state why you avoid war, explain why this matters in the context of the other team’s impact. Impact calc is your best friend!
 * evidence comparison. I want you to tell me the way I should frame your cards in the round.
 * have fun! Stay in the competitive spirit, but be respectful of each other and enjoy yourself doing an activity that all of us love and sacrifice countless hours for.

If you have any questions about anything/want more elaboration on any of the following please feel free to ask before the round has to start!

I believe, for the most part, topical plans are good. I have been persuaded to vote for the otherwise. Have an interpretation, and prove that your vision of the topic is better than the other side’s. Explain why your interpretation matters and what it looks like.
 * Topicality **

I usually think theory arguments are a reason to reject the arg, not the team - but if you want to present me with good arguments to why I should vote otherwise, I can be persuaded to pull the trigger on theory. Much of what I stated about topicality is applicable to theory - have an interpretation, explain why the argument matters, etc. Make sure your arguments are clear - it’s rather hard to flow 3-word theory arguments at the same speed as cards.
 * Theory **

I’m probably not your best judge on the K, but if you’re good at it, don’t hold back - just keep in mind that I probably don’t know as much about it as you do. Refrain from dropping a bunch of abstract jargon that I don’t know the meaning of, and make sure I understand what the kritik is (if I’m sitting there with a confused look that’s a bad sign). Specific links and a coherent explanation of the alternative will probably help my comprehension. The better the kritik engages the aff, the better.
 * Kritiks **

On the aff, same thing, generic frameworks and perms are not going to get you as far as specific answers would. Make sure you answer devastating tricks the negative should be arguing. I don’t think that Ks should not exist in debate. Framework is fine when you justify your methodology and don’t drop stupid arguments.

I wholeheartedly agree with the following:
 * Clarity / Organization **

“I want to hear the words you say. All of them. That includes the words in your cards and the subpoints of your theory block. I think we as a community have let clarity get away from us. I was recently pleasantly surprised by a few debaters who were both incredibly fast and crystal clear at all points in their speeches. I was also saddened that they stood out as anomalous in contrast to many of the debate rounds that I judge. In addition to the clarity with which you deliver your speeches I believe this also is a component of organization in the round. It is functionally impossible to follow your arguments and apply them correctly when all of the debaters in the room abandon the structure of the flow/line-by-line. Embedded clash is fine. Flat out ignoring the order/structure of arguments and answers is not. While speaker points have always reflected things like clarity & organization I am going to use them more heavily in this regard in an effort to encourage good practices amongst the debaters in my rounds. If you are not clear, I will ask you to be clear once, if you are not clear after that, your partner should probably keep an eye on me to make sure I look like I’m following you, because if it’s not on my flow, it’s not in the round.” - Sara Sanchez