Abhyankar,+Rahul

**General**: I'm a blank slate parent judge (that may seem contradictory) that comes from a PF/Parli background, so I'm better with net benefits/policymaking debate -- not too familiar with value/criterion arguments but if you clearly explain it then you should be fine. Fast debate is definitely not my style. **Plans/Counterplans:** Just because I'm from PF doesn't mean I don't like good plans and counterplans. Most CPs are legitimate in my opinion -- I'm not a big fan of conditional counterplans but see the theory section below. CPs must be competitive with the aff and plans should uphold the resolution -- trying to win a non-topical aff with me will be hard but if you articulate it well then there's a slight chance I vote for you. Plans that are hyperspecific will probably lose me. **DAs:** Explain your link story carefully and make sure to do some impact calculus that will make my decision easier in the end. **T/Theory:** Make sure to clearly explain the ABCD, why theory is drop the debater/argument and why I should/shouldn't give RVIs. If you're running an abusive position, it definitely makes it harder to win the theory debate -- but it's not impossible. **Ks:** Kritiks in general don't make intuitive sense to me, but that being said, I'll be full prepared to vote for you if you articulate it well. If you're planning on running a K, please spend a good chunk of time on it in the 2NR telling me why I should vote on it and clearly explaining how the alt solves. **Begin with the end in mind:** Please don't run 7 off -- have a clear-cut strategy going into the 1NC of what you're going to end up with at the 2NR and your best bet will probably be to only go with 1 or 2 strong, clear arguments. If you're the 2AR, explain to me why just because you dropped something in the 1AR doesn't mean you can't win the round. It all pretty much boils down to this - spend more time on what you think needs to be explained; if you explain the debate better than your opponent, you'll probably end up winning the round. Speaker points: I give speaker points based on argumentation, refutation, organization and part presentation. I do think that the emotion is often lost in debate; if you tell a good story, it gives you a head start.