Sohoni,+Aneesh

I debated at Wayzata High School and debated for the University of Minnesota. I am in my 5th year of coaching at Wayzata.

General overview: Ultimately, I think debate is about the debaters, and not about the judge. Go for whatever arguments you are comfortable going for and I will evaluate it. Doing impact calculus throughout the round is a must if you want to win. Regardless of whether you are going for "policy" or "critical" impacts, you have to give me some calculus to evaluate the round. If you have any specific questions beyond what I will write below about certain arguments, feel free to ask.

Topicality- I view topicality in terms of competing interpretations unless told to do so otherwise. This means that you should do comparative work on the standards debate and impact why your standard should be evaluated over the others. In general, too many aff teams read counter interpretations that are not responsive to the negative definition. Negatives should use T as an option more often when this happens.

Theory- I do not have biases against any theory argument and in fact believe that certain theory arguments have a lot of credibility. There are a few things you will almost certainly have to do to win theory. First, and most importantly, explain why the theory argument proves abuse in the round. It is very hard to win potential abuse as a voter on a lot of theory arguments, because rejecting the argument and not the team solves all of your offensive reasons to vote for your interpretation on theory. Arguments like time skews, strategy skews, etc. are good ways to prove in round abuse.

CPs/NBs- Obviously a good debate argument. The main argument you need to prove on counterplans is why you solve the aff case. It is likely that most counterplans will have some level of solvency deficit, it's just a question of how the analysis and evidence distinguish how much of the case that the CP can solve. After that, it's a question of doing comparative work between the net benefit and any solvency deficit the aff is going for.

DAs- Establish your impact calc early in the block. I think the biggest weakness of high school debate is the lack of case work done. DA/Case debates rarely happen, but would be very effective if the 1NC sets up a shield of solid case arguments.

Kritiks- Like them when they are run well. Link work should be done specific the affirmative case. Giving reasons why I should be given reasons to reject the Aff's methodology, aesthetics's, epistemology, etc. will also take you a long way, as many teams rarely have a defense of the way they frame their case. I generally default to the aff gets to weigh case and neg gets an alt on framework. I can, as with everything, be persuaded otherwise.