Advani,+Sunny


 * My biography: **
 * High School**: Leland High School, Class of 2013: I debated all four years in high school and qualified to the ToC my senior year. I'm most experienced / versed in "straight up" / policy-oriented debates- my partner and I read a plan-text aff and went for disad/case most of the year.


 * College: ** University of California, Berkeley


 * Currently:** Assistant Coach at El Cerrito High School / Part-Time Coach for Leland High School

Rounds judged on the 2013-2014 topic: 20


 * Some General Things:**
 * Debate is an educational activity. Do not ruin that for yourself, your partner, your opponents or me by being rude or offensive.
 * Anything on this philosophy is not set in stone. It's your job as a debater to convince me otherwise if you see something on my philosophy you don't like. I'll always try my best to have an open mind to make the fairest decision.
 * Tech > Truth
 * Dropped arguments are true arguments, but only matter if they are __explained and impacted__.
 * Smaller, deeper analysis debates are better than debates with lots of arguments involved.
 * More off case does not always mean a better strategy
 * If you think my philosophy doesn't say much, look at my primary coaches' philosophies, everything I know about circuit debate I learned from them (Gene Chien, Edwin Lin, Tom Meagher, Jackie Young)


 * Topicality****-** Definitely willing to vote on it. Strategic interpretations and violations are awesome and I invite you to read them. What I'm looking for most are the impacts of topicality ,what your interpretation of debate means for debate versus their interpretation. I will likely defer to competing interpretations.


 * CPs-** Great- I think the best counterplans are well-researched and specific (especially when they come from 1AC authors). Solvency advocates with specifics to the aff are slayer, which also means that super generic counterplans are... not so slayer. PICs are awesome, mechanism counterplans are great. Consult / Conditions / Delay.... not my favorites but winnable. I will not kick the CP for you in the 2NR if not explicitly told to.


 * Theory****-** If you're going for theory as a reason to reject the team, show me that there was some kind of in-round abuse. Contextualize the argument to the round. Potential abuse is probably not a voter... Even if a theory argument is dropped that doesn't mean I automatically vote for you, you have to explain why your theory argument is a reason to reject the team, not just the argument(s).


 * Disads-** Love them, love them, love them. My partner and I primarily went for disad/case or CP/disad on the negative and faced these strategies a lot on the aff. These kinds of debates are my favorite and I've had the most experience with these kinds of debates. Politics disads are great and perfectly fine with me. I'd rather have good analysis than lots of cards, so refrain from just reading blocks. The best disad debates involve lots of evidence comparison and explicit impact comparison- make it clear to me why the disad turns/outweighs case or vice versa, don't just say it and expect me to believe you.


 * Case-** I LOVE a good case debate. 3 off and 5 minutes of case is INFINITELY better than 8 off and 2 minutes of case. Analytics and evidence indicts can make some of the best case arguments.


 * Ks-** Ks are great arguments if articulated and explained well. To win a K in front of me you'll have to do a lot of work on the alt level especially. If you're trying to win on 2NC framework cheap shots, you'll have to make it clear. One thing that is necessary for me as a judge to vote for you if you're going for a K is contextualization to the aff. I find that a lot of 2NCs and 2NRs on the K will do a great job explaining their argument but involve themselves very little with the aff itself. This doesn't mean read more generic links, but make smart arguments as to how the aff specifically links to the K.


 * Non-traditional debate-** Definitely open to vote for these kinds of affs, but I'm also a sucker for framework. I read a K aff (no plan text) a few times, so I'm not totally against it. That being said, I'm not as experienced in these kind of debates as I am for more "straight-up" rounds.


 * Calling for Cards-**__ The only reason I should have to call for a card is if there is a debated claim about what the card says. If your evidence truly is fire, explain why it is and don't just tell me to call for it. I hate calling for cards because I want your rebuttals supported by evidence to convince me, not just your evidence.