Kaushish,+Pranav


 * Name: Pranav Kaushish**
 * Schools: Chattahoochee High School/UGA**

Debated 4 years at Hooch.
 * 1. Please indicate your experience with policy debate.**

I’m not a huge fan of T, especially the lame definitions of “substantially,” etc. That being said, I have voted on it before but I’d much rather prefer to watch a good CP/politics/case debate go down. Aff’s gotta counter-define every word the neg does, or else you put yourself in a hole. Don’t make RVIs. T 2ARs should be big on impact calculus – like why is overlimiting good, why does education precede fairness or the other way around.
 * 2. Any predispositions on topicality that you think students debating in front of you should keep in**
 * mind? Do you tend to vote on T frequently/infrequently?**

Not gonna lie, I hate the K. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote on one if it’s won, I’m just saying that it’ll be an uphill battle because I tend to lean aff on most arguments. First, - FRAMEWORK – affs MUST argue this...make aff choice args here, reasons why the neg’s framework is random and counterproductive. I’ll usually end up deciding that the aff gets to weigh the impacts of not doing the plan vs. doing it, meaning the neg probably won’t win that “reject the aff and only pay attention to our arbitrary crap” if you do that. 2AR – case (heg) is a DA to the alt is usually a money strat. The “try or die” systemic impact calc is also an option. Aff – call out vague alts – one thing I really despise is teams getting away with saying “reject” the aff solves the questionable Kish impacts and even the aff. I'd much rather hear you go for impact turns.
 * 3. Any leanings as to how you feel about evaluating kritiks?**

If you do go for a K, make turns the case args, X comes first args, cheat. You gotta do that to win. Aff – punk them in cross-ex about this crap and I’ll love it.

Ttypically my partner and I went for an international actor CP plus politics and case. I’d rather not vote on theoretical objections - Things that are good: Conditionality. PICs. International fiat. Things that are questionable: multiple conditional worlds are debatable, but I’d say I lean negative. Things that I don’t like: consultation cps including referendums, condition CPs, counterplans based off of normal means.
 * 4. Any leanings as to how you feel about evaluating counterplans? What about theory issues**
 * relating to counterplans such as the legitimacy of conditionality – any predispositions or other**
 * thoughts?**

If the aff does choose to go for theory, it should be well developed in the 1ar and should be the vast majority (probably all) of the 2ar. Perm theory is only a reason to reject the arg, not the team.

Impact calculus is integral to success. At the beginning of the 2nr and 2ar, give detailed, warranted impact overview- either magnitude or time frame and then turns the case/we solve the impacts args. Getting into sweet discussions about the amount of nukes a country has or how many bombs would be unleashed if you’re impact happens is tight. If going for a systemic impact, make sure you’ve got defense against their scenarios.
 * 5. Besides the need for clarity, do you have any speed, stylistic or other miscellaneous comments?**
 * What is your policy about reading evidence after a debate?**

If going for a disad and case, the 2nr should explain why the impacts outweigh a full risk of the case. 2ar, opposite. Good impact analysis = good speaker points.

Also, give impact analysis in 2nc/1nr overviews. Don’t drop it in the 1ar. I like the phrase “the role of the ballot” followed by a detailed, fair way to evaluate the round.

Politics is definitely my favorite argument to go for. But, like Herndon says, “Being good on an argument I dislike is better than being bad on an argument I like.”

I don’t want to have to drop you because you sound like you’re eating something while speaking. Don’t get bored, or I’ll get bored. Jokes are cool, I think I like lame jokes more than the average person. But make sure you know it’s a lame joke when you’re telling it. Try to make me laugh without trying too hard. Sound smart. Be assertive in cross-x, but not mean. Ask quality follow-up questions. Set up links to things. Only make fun of the other team if they’re you’re friends and they don’t take it seriously.

I’ll read cards if the context has been challenged. I won’t like reading evidence if it hasn’t been explained well – if you want me to read something, you better invest some time in it. I’m not going to vote for you for having good evidence – I’ll vote based on who explains their positions best, with evidence as support.

2AC – read add-ons and I’ll love it.

I think I like defense more than the next Hooch debater. I will probably ultimately resolve issues in an offense-defense paradigm, but I can see myself voting on just defense against a DA and then a load of impact calc on case. The arg that “there is always some risk,” is questionable in my mind.

Have fun and play ball!