Biswas,+Sangita

Kritiks: I'm unfamiliar with the literature on kritiks because I'm uninterested. If they are competitive and have a clear, well-explained advocacy and are well-suited to the debate then perhaps it will be considered. Also, you should obviously do impact calculus. I err towards the aff on framework questions and whether or not they should be able to weigh their case, but I can be convinced otherwise. Affs should question what the alternative does more.

Disads/Counterplans:These have a lot of impact to the round. I don't automatically err to offense/defense, if you don't have any I/L, I won't accept the argument.

Topicality: I really don't have a preference for topicality unless clearly it has nothing to do with the resolution.

Theory: Definitely not something I want to hear. Theory arguments are more persuasive against multiple conditional advocacies, 50-state fiat, delay, and consultation counterplans.

Debaters should extend and weigh arguments, and tell me at the end of the last speech what the voters are and why. Signpost, please.

Dropped arguments are true arguments. Drop them properly. Don’t just stop talking about them. If your opponent does drop this argument then bring it up so you can reap the benefits of their mistake. Give credence to author quals. NO SPEED, If i can't understand you, I won't flow. Be cordial, yet clear and firm in remarks.