Garg,+Sarthak

I debated for the Historic Little Rock Central High School for four years. I have been every speaker position and read arguments ranging the full spectrum on both the aff and neg side.

Prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer. If there's an email chain, prep will stop when the email is sent.

Be nice and I would prefer that you read what you’re best at and comfortable with. I’m open to debaters making whatever arguments they like as long as it is a coherent argument that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I will default to evaluating the debate by what was said in the debates and not my personal dispositions.
 * General Information **

I also think that it is important for teams to engage with the others arguments. The important thing is to explain your argument but more importantly is to explain why it matters/why I should care, and what I should do in order to resolve the issue, so it’s important to start narrowing the debate down and framing my ballot by the last speeches. I am most comfortable voting for you when you win debates outright, flow-by-flow. Line-by-line and good technical debating are at a premium here. Explain how the arguments you read interact with and short-circuit the arguments the other team is reading/going for. Flexibility, round vision, and adaptation in both argument style and in-round argument selection are things I value highly This will increase your speaker points and minimize the issues I’m left having to parse through after the round.

// Things to do -- // 1. Slow down/speak clearly. Fewer/better/longer cards, more explanation. More clarity and popping on keywords in evidence. 2. Start the 2nr or 2ar with what the first 10-15 seconds of the decision would sound like. 3. More case, it's clash-filled and engaging. No ev on the case? Doesn't mean you've got nothing to say; I love analytical arguments. 4. Treat each other well and have fun. No one gets to debate for very long and we all give so much of ourselves. I care deeply that everyone feel welcome and valued. 5. Tell me what evidence to read and why. I value ev quality greatly but don't read much unless it's contested.
 * Brian Rubaie puts it best: **

I care very much about evidence quality if the issue gets contested or specific cards become of issue in later speeches. Debate is an educational game, and tech over truth is the fairest way for me to evaluate debates— if you can’t beat timecube or the lizards k, you probably don’t deserve to win. Dropped arguments are true arguments, no matter how stupid they are. But I will not extend arguments for you. Extensions without warrants are not extensions.
 * Tech/Truth/Evidence **

Smart Analytics > Mediocre Evidence

// Topicality/Framework // —I like a good T/FW debate from both the aff and neg perspective. It’s important to counterdefine. I will not vote on simple buzzwords like education and fairness without you actually impacting out why that matters (see above section on framing). Impact calculus is a must. Slow down a bit on these otherwise I won’t be able to flow everything.
 * Specific arguments: **

// Theory // —Like T, these debates need to be warranted out and impacted. Just reading blocks aren’t sufficient; arguments have to be engaged. Slow down on theory. I don’t have any predispositions for theory arguments so go for it if that’s your thing.

// Case Debates // —Entirely under-utilized. Too many teams get to weigh the entirety of the aff advantages regardless of how contrived the series of internal links or how poor the solvency mechanism is at solving alt causes etc. Also case debates don’t necessarily have to have cards to be good, sometimes pointing out bad evidence or just making true/smart arguments is plenty sufficient to greatly mitigate the case’s impacts. I really enjoy impact turn debates.

// Disadvantages // —Fairly straightforward. Do it if that’s your thing. Make sure you have a solid link story. Warranted impact calculus is preferred.

// Counterplans // —Necessary vs sufficient claims are very smart and good to go for in front of me. I do think a counterplan needs a solvency advocate. I appreciate a well thought out counterplan and if you can get away with a sneaky counterplan, go for it. If you’re going for the CP, I’ll need warranted explanation of why the counterplan solves the aff and is net beneficial to vote for it.

// Criticisms // —I’ve got experience here but that doesn’t mean you should just throw around buzzwords. Again, line-by-line and good technical execution are at a premium here. Make sure you explain why what specifically the aff is doing is bad, what the implications of that are, what the ballot does to challenge that, what my role as a judge is, and how I am supposed to frame the round. The affirmative team should make sure to challenge role of the ballot/judge and the lens through which I am supposed to view the round. Make sure these are warranted and you engage the other team’s argument when you’re framing the ballot in the 2NR/2AR. Links should always be contextualized in the context of the affirmative even if there are not cards for every link. The more specific your arguments and spin are to the affirmative, the more persuaded I will be to vote for you. There needs to be warrants to all the arguments just don’t say value to life outweighs or ontology first you have to explain why that is true. I think to win a K you usually have to mitigate the case in some way. The alternative is where these debates tend to be the most shallow. Aff teams: challenge what the alternative does and why it would be revolutionary. Neg teams: explain why the alternative can resolve underlying issues/the links to the K and why it would be a good methodology towards X issue.

// K Affs // —If this is your thing, go for it. A lot of what I wrote in the criticisms section applies here—explain everything, frame my role, and the role of the ballot. If the neg reads framework, refer to the above section on T/FW. I don’t have any predispositions to either side of this debate so warrant and impact everything out. Even though I generally think affs without a plan can be permissable I will still vote neg on framework, if the negative does the better debating. An aff without a plan must have strong warranted reasons that it is justifiable in framework debates in order to win. K affs with a topical plan I think are almost always legitimate but can be extra topical, so you'd be better off reading a specific T argument rather than just extra T. I think a lot of times these affs make large claims that could be substantially mitigated by the negative having a case debate and engaging the aff with reasoned arguments.

// Cross-examination // —It’s important. A well executed cross-x can substantially mitigate an argument or drastically improve your speaker points. Referencing arguments made in cross-x as warrants or extra links for the DA or K will boost your speaker points and ethos.

= = "All types of discrimination are prohibited – the debate is a safe space for learning and interaction. Evidence must be presented in an academic fashion. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. I also consider violations of disclosure norms to be pretty lame generally, but I understand the difficulty surrounding enforcement of my personal beliefs about disclosure. Don’t say “new aff” if you’ve read the same aff, but have a different “theme” to one of your advantages."—Brett Bricker
 * Cheating: **

Have fun and feel free to ask me any questions before the round and/or email me at sarthakgarg619@gmail.com !

Creds to John Block, Daniel Schexnayder, & Ian Wren