Nijjar,+Manraaj


 * Affiliation:** 3 years debating at George Mason University

I will evaluate most any argument. I draw the line when you get near Timecube, if you are unsure whether or not you should read an argument in front of me just take a few seconds and think to yourself just how similar to Timecube is this? If it is within 1 degree of Timecube, similar to the Kevin Bacon system, I would advise against it.
 * OV:**

I have very little knowledge on the Oceans topic (Outside of having seen the Little Mermaid once or twice), so don't expect a **depth** of understanding on s**pacific** literature. If you point out cards are **fishy** I'll probably read it.

If no framework is presented, I will default to consequentialist policymaking paradigm I will not do the work for you, unless you say it in a speech I will not evaluate it in the round. Sometimes smart analytics are better than bad cards. Also a drop is a drop, just flag it as such and extend it through the debate. You will need to explain how it influences other aspects of the debate in the rebuttals.

I am not very good at **T:** Can be a voting issue but is never a reverse voter I will most likely default to competing interpretations if the debate is dead even towards both sides. T is a time to be slower and more persuasive so act accordingly I view the T debate by determining who has better interpretation of the topic---discussions of predictability, limit, and case-list are good.

Spec arguments serve a purpose, mainly for negative ground, some spec arguments are really bad though. If you plan to read a spec arg and go for a spec arg, always try to prove abuse in the round, potential abuse is not super persuasive unless it's articulated where they create an understanding that is bad for the whole of debate.

Anything beyond one conditional argument, especially when those two positions contradict one another means I'm more likely to vote on conditionality. Theory cheapshots are always evaluated, however if you read a dumb theory arg and the other team calls it a dumb theory arg....
 * Theory: **

Disads are the best thing, they're also a fundamental to any part of debate. Impact calc is good. That's all I have to say about that.
 * DA: **

I love counter plans, I think counter plans are always a smart thing to have in the debate. Fiat is magic, I think we all understand that. I think the principles of magic fiat are reciprocal, whether or not something is abusive however is a different debate. Remember to not use your magical fiat powers for evil, like object fiat. Advantage CP's are also always a good thing, if you do read multiple advantage CP's try to keep the debate from getting sloppy.
 * CP: **

Also have a solvency advocate.

Also no dollar less CP's or anything like that.

I lean more policy when it comes to kritikal arguments but that doesn't mean you can't win with a K. Don't be shifty, it's obnoxious. I am not well read on any kritikal arguments(The highest theory I know is Condo), so if you plan to go for it make sure to explain it well. Specific links are always better than generic links. Clear articulation of the alternative I'm not a fan of Floating PIKs(You're better going for root cause args) or Counter Perms.
 * K: **

I always defend a plan text, and I think that's for a few good reasons. I don't think that the AFF should be able to force the NEG to go for FW, so be sure to split up your 2AC time accordingly. That doesn't mean that the AFF can't still generate offense on why their interpretation of debate is better at the end of the round, it's just a question of resolving root causes. I enjoy having some clear articulation of a static advocacy. I'm more likely to lean NEG if the AFF is acting shifty or just never really answering questions. Methods debates are the worst thing to sit through. AFF also always has a perm.
 * KAffs/FW: **

This is the time to start breaking down your opponents arguments and their spirits. Always look at the judge during cross ex, remember you're trying to convince me however if you're about to go for the kill on an argument I won't mind if you peer into their eyes and savor their pain. Taking prep before CX is really underutilized especially by the neg. Always try and have the block strat set before the CX of the 2AC or don't I'm not going to tell you how to live your life.
 * CX:**

I don't take prep for jumping, but after a certain grace period I will begin to take prep. Email chains are preferable. If I see you prepping during jumping I will bump your speaks down I will also be visibly upset by how your broke the trust in the judge debater relationship.
 * Paperless: **


 * Speaker Points: **

This is a communication activity, that shouldn't be forgotten. Don't be offensive, that should go without saying. Jokes are good, puns are better. I start at 27.5 and move up and down accordingly. Imagine it like a game of chutes and ladders. If you do something like double turn yourself however, you may have a hard time recovering.