Vashi,+Adin


 * Background:** I debated Lincoln-Douglas for four years at Montville Township High School (Go 'Stangs). I'm now majoring in Accounting and minoring Computer Science at Northeastern University (Go Huskies).

**Short Overview:** I'm gonna be honest, I've been out of the game a while. I used to be fine with all speed, but you're gonna have to test the waters with me to make sure I'm keeping up (Update: I can't do spreading anymore. On a scale of cars, I'm like a Dodge Challenger. Keep the Lamborghini in the garage). I need a warrant and an impact for all your arguments. In order to have an impact for any of your arguments, you require a weighing paradigm. Seriously, I keep voting off risk of offense and it's killing me. Run theory if it's warranted. It's not an offensive strategy; it's a defense against abuse. I want to hear about the resolution.

__** The Whole Shabang **__

**Speed:** I judged a few JV rounds my senior year and I was fine with speed. Keep in mind that was almost a whole year ago. Spreading. If you're shooting out stock arguments, then it might be a good idea to get through them quickly, but understand that nuanced arguments necessitate more detailed flowing. If I can't understand it, I won't flow it.

It's important to me that you slow down a lot for tag lines and author names. If I don't catch it, I can't extend it later on.

**Flex-prep:** Only clarification questions (because all that does is let your opponent solidify his arguments). LD has time specifications for a reason. Strategize accordingly.

**Framework:** I'm down to tango with some weird frameworks. I ran some strange things in high school. The most important part of your framework is a warrant for your weighing system. You can talk about the importance of the social contract all you want, but if I don't know what impacts are important than I won't use your framework. Your framework, on its own, is not a voting issue. Your framework, if won, will likely win you the round in JV and do good things for you in Varsity.

I won't default to truth-testing or competing-worlds. I'm not sure why anyone would. In messy rounds with not a lot of standard analysis or explicit weighing mechanisms, I'll resort to whatever bottom-of-the-barrel weighing you give me, and I promise it won't be pretty.

**Theory:** It's an important part of LD, sure, but it's not a strategy to start off with. I'll vote for theory if you give me explicit reasons why your opponent is making the round unfair; oftentimes all theory does is take out one argument. This means if you have a shell lined up before the round starts, I'm probably going to hate it. If theory is going to be a part of the round, and a debater responds without the whole ABCD thing, that's fine. If you make a good argument, I'll vote on it.

**Policy Style Arguments:** I was interested in this stuff in high school, so go for it. If you're gonna run a Role of the Ballot or a K, you need to convince ME AS A PERSON why my vote carries real world weight. I'm not voting because of the oppression of left-handed pansexuals.

**Speaker Points:** Speakers points are entirely based on clarity, presentation, and persuasiveness. It has nothing to do with content. Debate is a public speaking event, and being able to express yourself convincingly and appropriately, in the real world, is incredibly important.

Cheers for reading my entire paradigm. If you do push ups while reading your entire constructive, I'll give you a 30.