Upadhyayula,+Nischay

Hi debate world. I debated 3 years on the Arizona circuit for Hamilton High School (Graduated 2013). I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania, and while I don't debate there, I do judge a bit at some of the local tournaments and am still in the loop on debate happenings.

I only vote aff. Just kidding, like any judge I lean toward certain arguments based on what I did in high school, but I have experience with pretty much the whole scope of argumentation and I'm definitely willing to think about the round from different frameworks/role of the ballots based on how you articulate them in round.


 * TL;DR You do you and do you well and you'll win**


 * The Debate Itself**

Make the debate easy for me guys. I know a lot of judges say this, but honestly, if I listen to just the last two speeches I should be able to understand most of the main arguments in the debate. Make logical arguments, those probably outweigh weak cards Be coherent in your argumentation Be aggressive and intelligent, but don't be rude WORST THING YOU CAN DO: Be mean to your partner. Don't do it. It's not worth it. Prep stops when the flash is OUT of the computer Disclose your aff unless it is new I prefer a debate with clash, prove not only why your arguments are good, but why the opponents don't make sense I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm, but this is open to be changed if you want it to be in the debate, just make the argument WIN

**Disads:** Make sure you have all parts of the DA in the 1NC and make sure the DA is logically coherent Make arguments about if/why the DA outweighs the case if you really want to win just the DA


 * Counterplans:**

I think the aff should probably have to defend the entirety of the 1AC, you read all of it for a reason, so you should probably have to defend it. I'm fine with the aff reading counterplan theory, I think that process CPs are probably somewhat abusive, but make sure you argue the theory well (discussed in the below section)


 * Kritiks:**

I read a lot of Ks when I was debating, but that being said, don't assume I am automatically familiar with your author. I like seeing a good K debate if you think it applies to the aff. Make sure to read SPECIFIC LINKS it's way more persuasive than something like "The USfg is biopolitical and so you're bad." I want to hear the story behind the kritik. Honestly, the key is just be clear with the kritik. Aff: Make sure to read some kind of framework argument so I understand how you want me to evaluate the debate.


 * T:**

Toward the end of my high school career, I loved T. I went for T a decent amount, because I think it's a pretty cool argument. That being said, I probably have a bit of a higher threshold for T debates, not because I don't want to see them (I do) but because most people use them as time sucks and then just read prewritten blocks or kick it in the neg block. T can be strategic and if you're going to go for it, make sure you do a lot of the line-by-line work. I always told my kids to treat T as a DA, explain the link (violation) and impacts (standards and voters) and argue back against what the other team says. If you do this, I'll be more inclined to vote for the argument and like you as a person. I default to competing interpretations, but can (pretty easily) be swayed toward reasonability as well

**Theory:** I also started liking theory a lot more, because of its versatility, and I'm definitely not one of those judges who says I won't vote on theory. I will vote on theory, but it still needs to be articulated like an argument. I need to understand the impacts of the theory debate going into the final rebuttal speeches. I am less likely to vote on potential abuse, in-round abuse is much more persuasive. As a general rule, I think 2 conditional advocacies is probably ok, less ok if they contradict.

**Performance/Non-Traditional Debate:** I've debate against a couple of non-trad teams before and I've seen some debated as well, so I have some, but not extensive, experience in this realm. I'll vote on your performance, but make sure you clearly articulate the impacts and make me understand my role as a judge in your performance. What does my voting for you do for your performance and why is that beneficial? This is the key question that you probably need to answer to win my ballot here.

Above all this, I'll vote for the team who compares impacts on whatever arguments they chose to go for the best. Feel free to ask any other questions before the round starts.

Gl;hf

Nischay