Purti,+Pareek

Used to debate for four years with Brooklyn Tech/NYCUDL DISCLAIMER: I've judged on this topic locally but I haven't done any of my OWN research on this topic nor have I read the literature. I also think the aft is usually either topical or not and it is just a matter of justification. An aft can't be "on the realm of the resolution" and not be topical or be fully topical.

a.) give examples of aff's that increase by your def. of substantial in T debates

b.) not throw out acronyms like I know what they mean.

DISCLAIMER #2: Please don't run a K in front of me just because I pretty much only ran K aff's. I think K debaters have a higher threshold for those debates than usual so please, if you want to debate politics - do that. Meat & Potatoes-

Framework - Because I feel like I was often a ruck when trying to come up with strategies for teams that had affs similar to mine, I feel like I have become sympathetic to framework arguments. With that being said, I also do know the other side of the story. I won't say I'm a "complete clean slate" because I don't really think that's true of anyone, and the judges I appreciated the most, were just ones that straight up told me that so I could tailor my style of debating to how they would be persuaded. Framework debates are actually my favorite kind and I think that they are very important because those are the kinds of debates that are creating the future of the activity.


 * Extend interpretations/voters. The other team - please punish if the opposing team is not extending interpretations/voters. Both are equally as important.


 * IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT - in terms of debate & on the meta level. (offense/defense paradigm unless you convince me otherwise).


 * Ben Crossan & DB say it best when they say that the more RELEVANT examples you have, the more persuasive you probably are - at least in terms of fw debates.

CX- I always firmly believed in being fully prepared for cross ex. I think in front of me, REALLY try to know where you are going with cross ex to help yourself. I think CX strategies are often poorly created (or pretty much non existent, even with the most talented of debaters) when this should be the time you are telling me why you are amazing in almost every way possible. I view CX as super important and probably do pay attention really closely. Don't be afraid to get a little heated but don't be annoyingly rude; there is a good balance between the two. Everything else- I'm not familiar with your super hot off the press link turns to answer that super popular politics scenario, so just explain/specify- all that jazz. I'd like to think that I could be convinced for [almost] anything, if done well. You just need to explain why what you are saying matters more than the other team. Things that are highly under utilized that I think are strategic/have voted on-

case debates/terminal defense + zero risk. PS: This is an activity of persuasion just as much as research. I value research, however, I think that you should probably be able to convince me of things. Monotone-ness will most likely make me fall asleep so let's just do all of us a favor and not sound like robots. We aren't that far in the digital age.