Shah,+Sachin

I have been debating for Lake Highland for four years.

__Short version: I’m comfortable evaluating all kinds of rounds such as K, framework, theory, larp/util, etc. I am probably the most comfortable with framework and theory debates.__

**Warrants:** Unless you justify why I should accept something without a warrant (for example, oppression is wrong), arguments must have warrants. Fancy rhetoric does not = a warrant. Repeating the claim twice does not = a warrant. “My author says so” does not = a warrant (unless there’s a reason the author is an authority and is making a descriptive claim they are qualified to make). Arguments without warrants are just claims, as a result I will not vote on something that does not have a warrant. I //will//, however, vote on arguments with warrants that are clearly false and essentially nonsense so long as your opponent doesn’t point out the nonsense.

**Ks:** I’m familiar with a lot of the K lit from high theory Deleuze to Wilderson so feel free to run whatever in front of me. I don’t particularly like Ks of authors (i.e. Kant is racist) but will vote on it if it is won.

**Theory:** Offensive counter-interps are great. If you read some dump please slow down a little and signpost arguments (if I have to call “clear” or “slow” more than 3 times, I will dock speaks). I don’t default to any paradigm, so if none are read, theory won’t be evaluated. I will vote on disclosure but think in-round abuse probably outweighs out-of-round.


 * Framework: ** I have read a lot of phil from Kant to testimonies so read anything. Hijacks are underutilized in my opinion.


 * LARP:** Please weigh and compare evidence.


 * Non-T affs: ** I will listen to them but am strongly swayed by Topically on this issue. Make it clear why I should vote aff.

**Extensions:** If and //only if// the claim is uncontested, you don’t have to extend the warrant. I’ll be pretty lenient on 2ar extensions. You don’t have to extend theory interps or violations if no I-meets are made (still extend counter-interps).

**Speaker points:** Here is a list of things I think are awesome and will earn great speaks: >
 * UNIQUE science or mathematics used to justify positions (automatic 30)
 * Condo logic
 * Original positions I have never heard before
 * Util justifications I have never heard before
 * Contingent standards
 * Side bias stats that are specific to a topic/tournament and not just from 2015
 * Methodology weighing
 * Speed: ** Start slow then ramp up speed. Your speed should be inversely proportional to the blipy-ness of your speech. If you want to emphasize something specific, slow down slightly for it.

If you have any questions, ask me before the round.