Patil,+Jason

seasons, finally in 2003-04 (an ocean policy topic). Since then I have focused on legal practice but followed debate topics with varying degrees of interest.
 * Jason Patil**
 * BACKGROUND:** I debated in high school and college, and served as an assistant coach for several

1. Treat everyone in the room with respect and dignity. Comport yourself as ambassadors for your schools. 2. Speech should be clear and comprehensible. This does not mean that you need to speak slowly, but, if you are not clear, unclear things will not likely be winners for you and I am highly unlikely to call for evidence that I did not understand. If you reach a speed that, despite clarity, it is too fast for me to process, I will tell you to slow down. If I do that, consider it a compliment that you can speak faster than my mind can follow. 3. I take cross-examination extremely seriously. It is as important for me as any other speech. 4. If I call for evidence, do not claim that you read parts of evidence that you did not in fact read. Other than those biases, I will strive to be as open-minded as possible, and will strive to set aside any personal biases in order to give each side a full and fair opportunity
 * MY BIASES THAT WILL NOT CHANGE:**

about debate. 1. I enjoy plan-centric debates. This does not mean that you need a plan, but in my experience, it brings a level of clarity and focus to subjects like topicality, counterplans, and links, which are educational and useful. 2. Topicality is quite important. No matter how you couch or characterize your position in the 1AC, the debate is at its most fair if you can explain how, since the topic was announced, this is just the sort of approach that teams should have expected to debate. (The fact that you have disclosed your affirmative online is not generally an answer to the overarching issue of topicality.) 3. A Kritik is most important when one can explain why its implications are absolute, as opposed to non-absolute, and when you can articulate a beneficial, meaningful alternative (or an explanation as to why, even without an alternative, it is better to reject the opponent’s position). 4. Disadvantage debates prosper in the presence of detailed discussions about risk (which are informed by the probabilities of each step), and comparison with the “risk” of advantages. 5. Theory debates are best when there is in-depth, meaningful discussion, as opposed to terse tag lines and sparing explanation. In other words, if you have a compelling, well thought out theoretical objection then present it, but quick shots of theory are less likely to be compelling.
 * MY PREFERENCES** are thing that I enjoy, but am willing to set aside. These are simply the things I like