Varghese,+Sherin


 * 1) Topicality- I default to competing interpretations. I’m fine with alternative interpretations of the resolution, no plan texts, no interaction with the resolution, etc. No RVIs, just justify what you do.
 * 2) Kritiks- Framework arguments should be less about rejecting a team for their argument and more about how I evaluate various arguments in relation to each other (e.g. the alt vs. case impacts). Most alternatives are about as stupid/unexplained as the distinction between “kritik” and “policy”. Negatives should be creative in their explanations of case turns—specific examples that ground the critique are sweet. I think the affirmative exercised their choice when they read the 1AC. In terms of other stuff-- alternative methods of delivering your argument are fine. Do whatever you want within the constraints of your own speech/prep time.
 * 3) Counterplans –I've noticed that I lean aff on theory in a world where the CP tests the squo instead of the aff.
 * 4) Theory- The offending team probably doesn't have to win offense in front of me for theory to go away.
 * 5) Computers— Read ev from them if you have to, but be aware that I think that the other team gets unfettered access to the computer during their prep, just like any other card. Get a jump drive/printer or suck it up and hand over your laptop. 'Malfunction' excuses do not fly.
 * 6) Impacts- HAVE THEM. I know everyone says this but I keep finding myself in debates without them. I really don't care if it is the same Bearden/Dillon/Nietzsche card I have heard six zillion times--I need a warranted explanation of how economic downturns/calculation upturns/anything lead to nuclear war.
 * 7) Other: Almost everything above is flexible. I seem to be forced to vote against my predispositions a lot. Things I like include: clarity, in-depth explanation, impact analysis, comparison, and analogies/metaphors/examples.