Sayani,+Chaitanya

 Chait Sayani DVHS '17 Add me to the email chain: chaitanya.sayani@gmail.com LADI Website: https://www.theladi.org/  Basics: I did LD for Dougherty Valley High School for 4 years and policy for a bit as well. Like most judges, I will try to evaluate the round as objectively as possible and will not paradigmatically exclude any argument unless it is blatantly racist/homophobic/deliberately exclusionary in any manner. That said, like most judges, I definitely have preferences for certain strategies. To borrow from the late great Arjun Tambe, even if your strat contradicts my defaults, I will still vote on it if its well explained and impacted. Your strategy does effect the amount of work you will need to do to win the round in front of me, So while adaption isn't particularly necessary, it does go quiet a long way in terms of strategic viability. Below, i've listed my views and affinities for certain types of Arguments.  Straight Up/ Util Debate: This is quiet possibly my favorite form of debate to watch and judge. In another universe, I might've even been a straight up debater, but unfortunately I am trapped within the confines of this one. Honestly, I don't think I evaluate these types of debates differently from anyone else, so if you wanna read these args in front of me, go ahead. However, all the regular technicalities still apply. I think Impact Calc is definitely important, and evidence comparison especially on the Uniqueness and Impact Debate make the evaluation of the round a lot easier. I also think Counterplans must be competitive (read: don't say the CP solves better so we compete through net benefits lol). I think you need to win Uniqueness to win a link turn, and I think that Perms have to win a net benefit. Also as a final note, I find it really hard to believe terminal defense claims. In the words of Scotty P "IMO, there are in fact, risks of things". Good Straight up debaters give me a consistent framework to resolve that risk and make my life easier. If you wanna have a good Util Debate, by all means, go ahead.  Kritiks: These were probably my favorite args to go for my sophomore, junior and senior years. I am comfortable evaluating most kritik authors, but with that said, I will hold you to a higher level of explanation that some others might. One of my main pet peeves in K debate (especially in LD) is reading a horrifically generic link and doing zero case contextualization in the 1NC and dumping some generic overview in the 2NR. My only requirement to reading the Kritik is to know what you're saying. Engage the Case, and leverage the thesis of the Kritik against various responses. Create a story behind the ballot, and persuade me to buy it. As long as you satisfy that litmus test, read whatever you want. Edit: Some people told me this section was too vague, so in order to be a little more specific, here's a list of some kritiks i've been going for this year so far. Sep Oct: AfroPes, Fear of death, Meltdowns, Security. Nov Dec: Psycho, Agamben, Delueze, Nietzsche. Jan Feb: Baudrillard, Bataille, Delueze, Warren. Check my wiki if you have any more questions  Theory: Definitely not the best for theory debates, but I am relatively alright at evaluating them. Don't blip through 7 theory standards in the 1NC/1AR and expect me to magically vote on a horrifically and uncleanly extended standard in the 2NR/2AR. Here are some defaults I lean towards: - Default Reasonability, NO RVI's, and Drop the Argument - I lean neg on 1 Condo, but anything more than that makes me iffy - I do think a lot of theory that's being read nowadays is kinda ridiculous, but I will definitely vote for it if you win it. Just remember I do think Reasonability is a pretty persuasive out on that flow however. To contextualize this, here are some interps I find frivolous that I plagiarized from Kris Kaya's paradigm: Must Spec Status in Speech, Must Read Policy Alt, Must Spec what Maximizing Expected Well Being Means, Extinction impacts bad, Must spec university, etc. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- I also don't think that winning one standard on theory magically makes all others irrelevant. I think because of my relatively low experience going for theory, Impact Calc and comparative analysis is especially key. Impact your args. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Side note on Non T K aff's: I am much more lenient towards direction of the topic aff's as opposed to straight up non topical aff's, but again, Ill evaluate both. Ironically, even though Dougherty's arguably most successful aff was non topical, I lean neg on FW vs K aff debates. If you're aff really is that baller, there's probably a TVA. However, the K debater in me does make me willing to adjudicate FW debates relatively objectively. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Phil/Framework Debates: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Much like theory, I am less experienced with Phil than I am with other types of my arguments, but will evaluate them regardless. I understand basic phil like Kant, Habermas, Rawls, but thats about it. If you do decide to go for this strat in front of me, please make sure to explain, impact, and compare warrants (Read: Tell me what the hell is going on and why I should vote for you). <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Tricks: https://goo.gl/BGF2xt. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">My understanding of a lot of tricks are limited so run them in front of me at your own discretion. I agree with Arjun when I say that I think Tricks are kinda bad for debate. Just engage please. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Misc/General Notes: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Sending a speech isn't prep <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- I will yell clear <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Tech > Truth <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- I think Disclosure is a good thing <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- You must be willing to Flash/Email/Pass pages. Give your opponent access to your arguments during the round <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- I default Offense Defense <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Don't be mean <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Extensions require explaining a warrant. Not just saying Extend this. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Speaks: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I start at a 28 and go up or down based from there.