Mahajan,+Sachin

- I know nothing about this topic, I have no idea what any acronyms mean or what any aff really does so explanation is key. - I probably won't read evidence unless it's during cross-ex or the content of evidence is contested by both sides - If I notice you are clipping =, you will lose and be given the lowest speaker points I am allowed to give you. - If I notice you are not flowing or trying in the debate, you probably will not receive above a 27. - I have come to realize I dont enjoy T debates (policy v policy) and if your 2NR is T I will be this sad -> :((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( - Post round me if you want, you cant make me feel upset but we can talk about why I think you lost. - Until this gets old, guess my favorite migo, in 1 try and youll get +.3, 2 tries= +.2 and getting it wrong = .1 (this is to see if you read)
 * __UPDATED FOR EDUCATION__**

__**Kritiks:**__ I love the K as long as its debated well and am most familiar with psychoanalysis while I have gone for things like Agamben, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, as well. I am a lot less familiar with the identity side of critiques. THESE DEBATES TEND TO BE EASY FOR THE NEG TO WIN IF YOU CAN WIN YOUR OVERARCHING THEORY AND ARE CAPABLE OF APPLYING IT TO THE AFF. THEY TEND TO BE LOST BECAUSE THE NEG FORGETS THE AFF READ A 1AC OR BECAUSE THEY CANT IMPLICATE THE 1AC. For the neg: I think you all probably want to go for links to the aff with some external offense or reasons why the links turn case and a framework argument about why the critique comes prior to thinking about the aff. I am probably better for the high theory side of critical literature rather than the identity arguments but I understand a lot of the identity arguments to a decent degree as well. For the Aff: I think you have a few strategies against the K. 1) Framework, case outweighs, alt doesn't solve the case and mitigation to the links. 2) a permutation with mitigation to the impact of the critique 3) impact turning the critique. I think each strategy is good against different types of critiques but mostly, responding to the links in some way and winning that they don't solve whatever your aff talks about. Tbh I think I have voted aff in most K debates so far...

Do what you want as long as you can defend it, I haven't judged too many framework/T debates so I don't have too many opinions about them. I will try my best to judge these debates as fairly and well as possible. Against critiques, every round I went for a critique against a planless aff, the 2AR tended to be on the perm. You probably want to extend a perm if youre reading a K aff, and if youre answering one going for a critique, you probably want to spend a lot of time on the perm.
 * __K affs__**

__**T/Framework**__ I dont have too many opinions just yet about these debates but the important thing about fairness at least is: I don't think fairness is an impact itself, rather an internal link into other impacts.

__**Counterplans**__ If the counterplan debate is going to come down to some super techy competition questions, I am not the best judge for you, BUT that doesn't mean you can't read those counterplans, you'll just need to explain the really techy parts well. If you want to read advantage counterplans and impact turn or go for some specific disad, that's what I loved to do before I started going for the K. I think there are a lot of counterplans which CAN BE abusive but if the affirmative can't win that they're abusive then it doesn't really matter.

__**Disads**__ DA/Case - My 2NRs usually focused on we have a quick impact that turns case and is likely to happen even if it doesnt outweigh (the US entering another proxy war might not be as catastrophic as global warming but it sure as hell will accelerate warming, destroy the environment, destroy some carbon sinks

" I will listen to, begrudgingly, the politics disad – but prefer topical DA’s: The politics disad is shit, everyone knows its shit, and I am anxiously waiting for it to burn in hell. Just waiting for the killer argument to get rid of it so we can have the real disads again."

I think evidence comparison is probably most important here and on the case debate though and the only way I have been convinced of "0 risk of the DA" so far is when the aff has gone hard on no link;


 * __Topicality__**

I don't know much about the topic therefore I am not the best judge for techy T debates. That said, if you choose to go for T, I think limits is probably your best way of accessing offense and both teams should focus on limits as the inroad to offense.

Best 2NR strat in general on T for me: Framing question/ should be on part of the debate they conceded and you think is important, get into line by line after that and answer any we meets (this shouldnt be too hard). Spend a solid amount of time on your interp and why the ev or something is better about it which makes it more realistic, impact logically follows on the line by line and you should spend a good amount of time on your impact, how it turns their impact and how they cant access it. Answer reasonability without the generic 2-3 sentence block to it because I dont tend to find an underdeveloped "judge intervention bad" argument the most persuasive 2nr against reasonability. From my limited experience with T debates, I feel like reasonability is a plead to the judge which is something along the lines of "its the warming topic, shut up the carbon tax is topical, vote for us" **Framing question on the** interp **debate + good impact work, making sure they** cant **win the limits debate + your** interp **good (probably means a comprehensive case list** affs **you allow and** theyd **allow) + beat reasonability is probably your best chance at winning?**

Best 2AR: We meet if +reasonability if you are sure you meet which is rare but other than that, Counterinterp+access the negs main offense w/ aff ground or whatever offense you had, maybe their interp over or underlimits, thats really good offense against it and if the only impact in the debate ends up being limits, but you have aff ground or something else as well, I think you have a good chance of winning the standards debate which means youll probably win? So **CI + They over/**underlimits **+ external impact + reasonability + case list = good chance to win**