Mathur,+Mitali

I debated for Greenhill School for 4 years I also was a member of USA Debate for a year I currently attend Georgetown University and coach Greenhill School


 * General Comments**
 * OVERVIEW STUFF:
 * I view rounds through a comparative worlds paradigm.
 * Don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic/unnecessarily rude in round or ever.
 * Give your opponent a copy of your case if they ask – printed, flashed, e-mailed, or via a viewing laptop - this could affect speaks if your opponent asks and you say no
 * THINGS I LIKE:
 * when you talk about the topic
 * when you make your advocacy clear and aren't shifty
 * when you talk about real world issues
 * overviews that explain how I should evaluate the round/prioritize issues
 * weighing with explanation, not just the jargon of magnitude, probability etc.
 * Extensions– I think 1ARs can have a bit more leeway, but make sure warrants and impacts are clear – author names alone don’t cut it
 * A good CX. CX is binding and I’ll pay attention.
 * THINGS I DISLIKE:
 * racist/sexist/homophobic/classist/offensive arguments and comments
 * arguments that say any action is permissible
 * too many spikes or really long underviews that aren’t related to the topic. If you are aff and concerned about a side bias, write an aff that uses the entire 6 minutes with substantive arguments
 * misrepresenting evidence and reading strawperson cards. If there is an evidence ethics challenge, I will read the article and the piece of evidence in question. If you make the challenge, you are staking the round on it.
 * SPEED:
 * Go as fast as you want but don’t sacrifice clarity
 * Please slow down for interpretations and advocacy texts
 * Slow down for spikes/underview type stuff

I never was a framework debater myself. But, if you are a framework debater, don’t shy away from your strengths in front of me, just be extra clear and do a lot of interaction and weighing if it's a more complex framework and it should be fine.
 * Framework**

Totally fine. A framework is just a way to evaluate what impacts matter. Tell me what impacts matter and what piece of offense applies under that.
 * Case Debate**

Love them
 * Policy Args**
 * COUNTERPLANS
 * I love a well thought out CP
 * I'm fine with PICs as well
 * When you debate CPs, make at least one cleverly worded perm and explain how the perm functions (solves all offense, mitigates the link to the disad etc.)
 * DISADS
 * make sure there is real uniqueness!!!!
 * specific links based on specific affs will make me like you more
 * Ks
 * I prefer specific links over general links that can be re-used
 * Make sure you can defend the alternative and can EXPLAIN what it means
 * I’m fine if you have a role of the ballot/role of the judge – but if there is a counter ROB/ROJ, do some weighing


 * Theory**
 * For me, fairness is not a terminal impact, but it is an internal link to other impacts that are important
 * There is no “spirit of the interpretation,” there is just the interpretation
 * Don’t read stupid theory arguments over the smallest technicalities. I’ll be expressive so you can tell what I consider to be reasonable. I’ll evaluate it, but your opponent won’t have a high threshold answering it.


 * Topicality**
 * T is determined through the plan text.
 * A good T argument should have a specific interpretation and carded evidence
 * I’ll be impressed if you answer T with specific, carded evidence and do some weighing