Vedantam,Mihir

I did policy debate at Pembroke Hill high school for three years. I have debated at 2 policy tournaments for the University of Kansas

Overview: I don't really have any preference on arguments, but I did mostly read the K in high school. I don't really have any topic knowledge, so complex topic related arguments will have to be explained extremely well. Evidence Quality>Quantity

I agree with this statement that my friend Thomas Hodgman makes: " If you have the chutzpah to debate at a conversational pace in (what would have been) a fast round, I will be happy and give you extra points."

Card Clipping, Racist comments, and Sexist comments will result in an immediate loss and 1 speaker point for the individual who engaged in those actions.

I don't take prep to jump speeches, unless you take too long or are clearly stealing prep while doing it.

Policy Specific - T - The explanation of the interpretation on either side will be held to a high standard (ie clear case lists). Arguments about evidence qualifications are super important.

DA - Impact Calculus is key, I don't find "any risk of the link" or "rollback" arguments that persuasive, but will vote on them if dropped. I prefer evidence quality even in the context of arguments like politics.

CP - Counterplans that are textually and functionally competitive with a solvency advocate will be much easier to defend theoretically in front of me than any other counterplan. Not that I am unwilling to vote on things like consult, just biased against them. If the counterplan is pretty topic specific, i expect a clear explanation of what the cp does.

K - I don't really think that a K always has to have an alt. Clear explanation of what voting negative means for (insert the problem you are critiquing) is extremely important. Framework is an extremely important part of these debates, but impact turning is a way to avoid making framework claims.

Performance - I think these arguments are totally fine, you just have to beat the other teams' framework claims. I read a planless aff for one year in high school.

Theory - clear limits on what your interpretation does are key. Condo - 1 to 2 is fine, any more and I will be exponentially more likely to pull the trigger on a well done condo debate

Presumption - Not sure why change is bad, you should make arguments about why presumption flips aff/neg if necessary.

LD - I have judged a total of 11 rounds of LD and feel like I have a basic understanding of it.

Value and Criterion will serve as the lens through which I evaluate arguments, So linking your arguments to your own and your opponents value and criterion is advisable.

I do think that the fact that not all impacts in LD are evaluated through a lens of Util is super awesome. This doesn't mean I am unwilling to listen to a util debate though.

I am fine with almost any style of argumentation, Some of the things I will be less persuaded by RVIs on theory - unless there is clear time skew abuse from theory arguments in the round, I will usually not evaluate the RVI Skepticism - if you are reading this argument, I will not be held accountable for making the decision.

I never did PFD in high school, so my knowledge of them is limited at best. I will flow the round and use whatever judging skills I have picked up from policy debate to make my decision.