Sethi,+Neil

Alpharetta High (debated 3 years - policy) Emory 2014 (Currently junior, debating)
 * Background:**

I debated 3 years in high school and currently debate for Emory. I (much like most judges) prefer debates with specific, well-articulated arguments. I have heard a variety of arguments but will always separate my personal views from my decision-making in a round. Debate well, respond well, and most importantly, be nice.
 * Policy**:

As far as specifics, I pretty much agree with everything that Nikhil Bontha does. Check his judge philosophy out.


 * Specifics**

T - For me, the neg needs to win NOT ONLY that the other team does not mean or violates your interpretation of the topic, but why it would be a bad thing to allow their AFF/interpretation of the topic. Most of the time, teams don't do enough work on the impact level (standards) or the framework (competing interpretations v reasonability) level. By well-impacted, the NEG should win the AFF's interpretation would prevent the NEG from running arguments that would make it impossible to win or tough to learn about a certain topic that may be important. This should also involve a **comparison** of standards.

Kritiks - I am fine with kritiks, but I often find that a lot of debaters like to throw around jargon when extending them without a specific contextualization in terms of the AFF. Doing so opens the possibility for greater clash in the round -- plus, I shouldn't have to intervene and read the K cards at the end of the debate to make sense of the arguments. Encasing your kritik in tough jargon is a recipe for disaster. If you are going to utilize various small argument like "no VTL," "ZP of the HC," or turns the case, you need to make it a point to compare them to the AFF's set of arguments and how it impacts the macro-level picture of the Case vs the K. Don't forget the alt -- you can have an incredible link story but you probably need to explain why the alt addresses those links.

Politics DA - Love it. I've found I prefer turns case arguments that interact with the solvency of the case. So rather than generic turns case args like "nuclear war means we don't have an economy any more," I find arguments about how the disad is a necessary prerequisite for resolving the AFF's impacts (IE, "immigration reform is key to high tech workers that are necessary to sustain job growth and the economy in the short term") to be far more persuasive. But that's just a preference.

Theory Issues - 1-2 Conditional advocacies are probably okay, but any more than that is probably up for debate. Dropped condo should be exploited but with a good extension/explanation of it as a reason to reject the team.

Overall, be sure you impact your theory arguments, compare them to those of the other team, and explain why the opponent's theoretical violation would impact debates in terms of both quality and value overall.

Feel free to email me any questions at neilsethi@gmail.com