Krishnan,+Shruthi

Hi! I'm a junior at Greenhill, and I'm in my 3rd year of LD right now.


 * IN GENERAL (tl;dr)**

- I have way more experience debating than I do judging so making things clear for me is a good thing to do (Woodward 2017 is the first tournament I've judged at)

- Clearly explained warrants and impact calc/ weighing are important

- The stuff I'm most familiar with is policy args and Ks, I love good T debates, I am not super great for a dense phil debate, and "tricks" debate (a prioris, skep triggers, etc) honestly just confuses me

- You need uniqueness to win a turn

- Please use a flash drive/ email chain/extra paper copy/ etc to give your speech docs to your opponent, making them read over your shoulder or straight up refusing to give anything to them is not fun for anyone

- Do what you want to do because a debate where you explain args you are good at/ like reading will most likely be better than a poorly adapted debate about arguments I like slightly more

- Do not be racist/ sexist/ homophobic/etc

Okay specific stuff now yay


 * POLICY ARGS**

- CPs/ DAs are great to read in front of me, uniqueness is very important

- explain the DA link/ internal link story well in the 2NR unless it's just like 100% dropped in which case a quicker extension is fine

- If you're aff please ask the status of the CP (or K alt) and make a perm


 * Ks**

- Most important thing to do is explain what the alt does/ world of the alt looks like

- Having specific link args is also good

- It's not enough to just tell me that something is bad, you have to explain how the aff makes things worse or how the alt solves this thing better

- The aff should make perms! Also when answering perms I do like it better when people say more than "links are DAs to the perm" and move on (this is a fine arg it is just too often the only arg, especially if the aff read a more specific perm than "do both")

- I do not have much experience reading high theory so please explain in detail if you decide to do this


 * T/ Theory**

- I love good T debates!

- When both reading/ answering these args you should explain what the world of the interp and counter interp look like and do weighing

- I'd prefer that you not read theory just for the sake of reading theory

- Not super persuaded by RVIs most of the time but am persuaded by reasonability

- While I like T/ debate about state action and the topic a lot, you do not have to defend that if you don't want to, explain what your aff does well and answer T very well


 * LD FW/ PHILOSOPHY**

- It doesn't matter if you decide to have a standard/ ROB/burden/ etc if you explain how you're linking offense back to it

- again, I'm not the best for a deep philosophy debate, so please explain your FW/syllogism very clearly if you decide to do this


 * DISCLOSURE**

Disclosure is important, and I will vote on disclosure theory unless it's against a new aff or against a novice/ someone who does not know what the wiki is.


 * SPEAKER POINTS**

In general, I do these based on strategic choices/ how good you were in round.

Also- if you have questions about something that may not be in here, be sure to ask!