Patel,+Rahul

__**Experience**__: I debated for 5 years at The Westminster Schools in Atlanta, Georgia. I’ve been a 2A for 4 of the those years.

I have judged a moderate number of debates on this topic. I used to hate "disinterested" college students like me, when I was a high school debater but I still try to stay engaged now - even if I look tired I'm still engaged. It's just up to you to adapt.

__**Cliffnotes:**__ The way to win my ballot is strategy. Not to say that I tend to be distant from rounds, but I think that a good strategy with clever tricks (on the aff or neg) garners more interest from me which can only benefit your points and the quality of my decision. I think that the words “debate” and “clash” could be interchangeable. The earlier and more either team engages their opponent the more/better the debating becomes. A Kritik contextualized to an aff (or at least the impacts) combined with some case arguments with some spin can be devastating. Just to be clear though, do the most strategic thing to win: I don't really care about clash in a debate where the 2AC has dropped a process counterplan and politics. You don't need to practice going for the only thing the 2AC answered which is your terrible Kritik. You should assume I am stupid (probably because I am). If you intend for me to vote on an argument, explain what it is. I will under no circumstance feel comfortable voting on an argument I do not understand. ** __Compare__ ** impacts and evidence.

**Topicality** – In the event of an extremely technical T debate, both final rebuttals would benefit from a strong overview that provides a case list of their interpretation, a topical version of the aff (for the neg), or an counterinterpretation/ interpretation permutation that probably solves most of the impacts + some reasonability arguments (for the aff).

**K-** K tricks are incomplete statements until you tell me how your alternative/worldview is able to solve them.

**Performance**: I'll listen, but I probably won't 'get' it. Don't get mad at me.

__**Defaults**__ 1. __**Yes**__** terminal defense - ** Very possible to win 0% risk if an argument is debated very well and convincingly.

2. " Theory arguments should be rooted in something fundamental. There are hypothetical benefits of debate, then practices that further them, then specific arguments that are examples of those practices. These principles rarely result in a counterinterpretation that isn’t an arbitrary, self-serving turd shat gracelessly into a shallow theory debate."-Calum Matheson

3. ** No Judge Kick - ** //Unless the Negative makes an argument to the contrary//


 * 4.** **T before other theory args **


 * 5.** ** Intrinsicness - **Advance a complete argument in the 2ac


 * 6.** **Ev v. explanation. ** I respect the hell out of quality ev and the work that goes into it, but I also don’t want to punish teams with less capacity to generate it or who do more work explaining the cards they did read. Whoever establishes how to evaluate evidence has a chance to get ahead.


 * 7.** **Policymaker default - **Always arguable, and usually favors the aff in most instances, but neg teams keep saying "permutations check abuse" in condo debates so I guess ya'll agree with me anyway.


 * __Speaker Points__ **

I can’t really tell you specifically what constitutes a 27.5 or 28 – I will not go below a 27 assuming no one was physically injured/no cheating. My speaker points are usually on the lower side but if your strategic decisions are dope then you deserve dope points.

__** Non-Negotiables **__
 * 1.** ** Cheating ** – clipping, cross reading, misrepresenting evidence, any form of harassment will result in the lowest points allowed by the tournament and a loss even if it is not called out within the round


 * 2.** ** Paperless **– I’m fine with it. I will more than likely ask for a few cards after the round although I try to limit the number of cards I look at. I will need them on a jump drive (I will not steal your evidence).

I'd like to think I was the greatest debater ever but the truth is I was **far far** from it. I always felt my flowing skills were sub-par. If you still feel comfortable preffing me go right ahead! :) I also go to an Engineering school and receive little to no sleep regularly. Case in point, I'm writing this sentence at 6 am on a Tuesday at the tail-end of an all-nighter. If I happen to fall asleep during a debate (which should only happen during prep... maybe), please wake me up when it's time to give a speech, and please do not laugh at the drool on my shirt.
 * Other**

If you have any further questions my email is rahulpatel.debate@gmail.com