Saluja,+Sabir

I debated LD for 3 years for Monta Vista High School, graduating in 2014. I now attend the University of Southern California.

General: - **Berkeley Update:** I’m aware of the speaker point inflation at this tournament. Accordingly, I will adjust my speaks to clearly differentiate between debaters I think will break (>= 29) and debaters who I think won’t (<= 28) so that there’s less of a middle range. - I can probably best adjudicate a framework debate or theory debate. - Plans, CPs, DAs are all fine. Just make sure you do good, clear weighing. - I’m not very familiar with critical literature so explain your critical arguments clearly. Make sure you provide a clear role of the ballot/weighing metric for evaluating offense. - Slow down considerably for advocacy texts, theory interpretations, and the like. This is very important. - Slow down and give clear overviews during rebuttals. I don’t get why more people don’t do this. - Sign posting and labeling your arguments well is very important. - I really enjoy it when debaters end their final speech early! If the round is clearly over, this is the way to go.
 * - I’d like to see a debate about the topic. After judging 3 tournaments I have become saddened by ACs with 3 minutes of spikes and every speech boiling down to dumb theory shells just to avoid clash.**

Theory: - I default to competing interpretations, no RVIs. - In order for me to vote for an RVI, you need offense to a counter-interpretation. I don’t believe that I-meets are sufficient to vote for an RVI. - I don’t believe that offensive counter-interpretations make sense. - CPs / K alts are dispositional unless explicitly stated otherwise. - Don’t weigh your standards in a vacuum; make sure weighing is done in the specific context of the issues in the round. - I’ll evaluate theory if it’s used as a strategic tool. However, this needs to actually be executed strategically. Cleverly and efficiently beating frivolous theory will move speaks in your favor.

Speaker points are determined by strategy, efficiency, and overall clarity of your arguments.