Mody,+Arjun

I debated for four years at the Harker School in San Jose, California on the national circuit, and I'm now a freshman in college. I haven't judged any rounds on the topic so far, so you may want to keep in mind that I'm probably not up-to-speed on obscure acronyms related to the topic, etc...

I don't have strong argument biases, and I will vote for almost anything if it is argued well. That being said, there are a few specifics you may want to know about me. These being said, I would advise you to make strong arguments regardless of what's written below - none of these minor biases will overcome a well-developed argument. It's probably better for you to play to your strengths.

1. Topicality - as a 2A, I may have a higher threshold for voting on T than some of your other judges. I believe that the standards debate should largely be about whether a specific definition allows for cases with strong literature bases. Predictability is probably one of the most important T standards. Also, since I haven't judged on this topic yet, highly technical, topic-specific T arguments may take a little more explaining in front of me to win. I don't have a good idea of how the topic has evolved over the year, or what constitutes the main case list.

2. Framework - almost never becomes a voting issue, but if explained well may. I think arguments that talk about how your arguments are evaluated even in a world where the other team wins their framework are great. I will default towards policy-making, but went for the K very frequently on the neg and am completely open to non-policy-making frameworks. I have never debated performance and these kinds of arguments will need to be well-explained for me to vote for them.

3. Counterplans - having a solvency advocate for your counterplan goes a long way towards making a questionable CP theoretically legitimate. If the other team could research the specific counterplan, and it doesn't include the entirety of the plan, it's probably o.k. Of course, a solvency advocate doesn't mean that the States CP is legitimate just because the neg reads one card saying that some states have implemented random social service programs in the past.

4. Kritiks - went for these a lot on the neg. However, I'm not well-read in the more dense philosophical (we went for cap, not lacan) arguments, and these may take a little more explaining. If your 2NC overview is 2 minutes of philosophy, with no mention of links to the plan or specific cards the aff has read, it's probably a waste of your 2 minutes. However, Kritiks were my favorite arguments to debate as a 2A, as well as on the neg, and I'd encourage a specific, well-developed, and well-applied kritik debate.

Some random points -Dropping an argument does not make it 100% true. You still need to explain the warrants behind an argument, and view it in terms of probability and timeframe, for instance. -I should be able to tell the difference between the speed at which you read the text of your cards and the speed at which you read your tags. -"Even if they win X..." arguments are probably some of the best arguments you can make in your rebuttal speeches. This is the difference between extending answers and resolving arguments.

Most of all, have fun! Although I dn't debate in college, I loved the activity in high school and had a great time - I hope you do too. Best of luck.