Srikanthan,+Nishant

Hey guys, My name's Nishant and I'm a freshman at USC. I debated for 4 years at Monta Vista High in policy freshman/part of sophomore year and LD for sophomore, junior, and senior year. So I have a pretty diverse debate background making me open to a wide variety of arguments. In general, I default to a consequentialist calculus (I love me some net benefits debate) and I think that weighing wins debates (no matter what framework your argument operates under, structural/substantive weighing wins debates). On to specific issues:

Framework I may be a fan of util debate, but doesn't make that the only thing I vote for. I'm pretty much down for any framework as long as you justify it. Just don't give me generic util deont blocks, it bores me, I'd rather this debate be settled on a metaethical level. To be honest, while I think framework debates are critical to the round, I prefer substantive debates cuz they're just a lot less dry, so I'd appreciate it if both debaters balanced their strategy.

Disads + Counterplans Love 'em. Uniqueness is critical and must have a clear brink. I understand that this jan/feb resolution isn't conducive to them so don't run disads with tenuous links just cuz I wont vote for you just cuz you run one and I promise I won't be disappointed if you don't run one haha. Counterplans are absolutely legit so don't give me any neg fiat bad theory. If you have a problem with the counterplan, then run specific theory about why theirs is bad (ie PICs bad whatever).

theory I absolutely think that theory has its place in the round and it's a question of competing interpretations so you have to have a clear interp/counter interpretation. Fairness is a voter and RVIs don't fly. If you prove only potential abuse, I'll probably have some serious problems rejecting the debater and will scrutinize the issue realll hard, but it can definitely be a means to exclude arguments from the round. Rejecting the debater requires a clear abuse story.You gotta extend every part of your shell.

kritiks I'm down with them. I'm not very well versed at all in the literature though so if you plan on running it, you better understand your argument well enough to make it nice and simple for me.

aprioris sure why not, I do have a reasonability threshold on arguments so if i think it's absolutely ridiculous I won't vote on it. if your arguments an apriori,

any specific questions, ask away :).