Hebbale,+Chetan

Debated at: Chattahoochee, Johns Creek, UGA

I'm pretty open to everything, I don't have any strong pre-disposed biases about any issue.

__Topicality__ I can be swayed by any violation really if it's well debated. I like neg teams that can spin a topical version of the aff and have a reasonable case list. I don't default to competing interpretations, I can definitely be persuaded by reasonability.

__Disads__ Love a good disad debate, especially one that's aff specific. good explanations of why the DA turns case helps

politics disad - as far as uniqueness controls direction of link and vice versa, I think even if a neg team wins a large risk of uniqueness, uniqueness is always 50/50, nothing is ever passing 100%, so debating the link is more important. But then again, if the 2NC/2NR sets up the framework of uniq controls the link and it's not refuted by the aff, then I would probably swing neg.

__Counterplans__ Neg teams get away with too much. But if the aff refuses to be good at theory and be ready to roll on textual/functional competition, permutations etc then I'll (reluctantly) vote on consult, condition, other processes.

__Kritiks__ I kinda got a rep for being a K debater in high school (in my defense, I think some of the resolutions lacked good substantive strategies), so I'm down for the K and all your random cheating K tricks. I'm not very knowledgeable about far left Ks, so you'll have a bit of explaining to do if you're going for Baudrillard or DnG.

but there's nothing I hate more than a team that doesn't understand a Kritik (especially something really obscure DnG, Agamben etc), but have pages pre-written blocks and overviews for it from their varsity member and just read them. No one understands what you're talking about and judges vote neg because the neg team read their blocks that had a bunch of random K tricks that the aff didn't respond to. In that scenario, I'm far more likely to be lenient for the aff for making a few smart arguments even if they were technically worse on the flow.

Aff's debating framework - I'm going to evaluate the impact to the K v the impact to the aff. Focus your framework debating on reps not first, ontology not first etc.

__Case__ love case debates - most underutilized strategy in the neg arsenal and by and large 2AC's are very poor on the case debate. I think disads on case are strategic because 2As don't take them as seriously (just don't as long as they're like not in the middle of the flow because it makes the extension of the disad harder to flow in later speeches)

__Not USFG Affs__ If your aff forces the neg to go for framework, I'm probably not the best judge for you.... I'm honestly just not a good judge for judging long, complicated framework debates.

__Theory__ Unlikely to get my ballot if there's one conditional advocacy. I'm good with two conditional advocacies, you can still definitely get my ballot if you debate it well. Going above two and the aff has my sympathy especially if they are contradictory.

pre-round condo is not a thing

I'm okay with 50 state fiat but can be persuaded otherwise.