Verma,+Shaun

Meta Issues—
- Debate is a communication activity. Not only will it impact your points but if I can't understand you then I'm probably not getting all your arguments. Finals Rebuttals are when debates are won—You should convince me to vote for you by slowing down and doing comparative impact calculus (But no 5 minute overviews) - Sure I am opinionated on a lot of issues, but I am not opposed to any argument. The purpose of debate should be as a space for objectivity. Go for anything. - You shouldn't assume I know as much about your arguments as you do, explanation is good. - Debating counts more than the quality of the cards. (Note-I’m not saying cards aren't important, but if one team does better warrant explanation, and the other team has the better cards I default to the better debating) - Qualifications matter, but if they are not debated, i will not look at them. - Don't clip cards, cross read, etc. - Speaker Points - 27.5 is average, 30 is almost impossible. Closing doors and giving good framing arguments is what gets speaker points. Low point wins are rare. Usually, a dropped argument or some other mistake means you shouldn’t have high speaks anyway.

Specifics —
Topicality: Always a voter. I usually default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be defended. Framing is important in both final rebuttals. Impact your stuff, dont just say limits and fairness. limits should be impacted with arguments like in depth education, advocacy, civic engagement, etc. Also, T is not genocidal, racist or anything else of the sort.

Theory Debates: A good theory debate is a lot of fun to watch. This constitutes good analysis about which interpretation gives the best vision for debate as a community. FRAME THE DEBATE. I default to rejecting the team, and after that it comes down to interpretation vs. counterinterpretation. That being said, it is an uphill battle to win theory as a reason to reject the team if the defending team is covering their bases with some decent defense and a counterinterpretation. Conditionality is almost always a reason to reject the team. Conditionality – Up to two is usually fine, any more is probably bad. PICs/Agent CPs/Process CPs/IFiat – Probability illegit, and is an uphill battle for the neg to defend. IF this is your strat though, do it. I'm down.

Counterplans: CP/DA strats are what I’m most used to seeing in debates. Go for it. Any questionably theoretically illegit argument can be defended. I’ve gone for Counterplans that were illegit and probably not even competitive. That doesn’t mean that its not a good strat. That being said, the "always a risk of the CP linking less than the plan" is not persuasive.

Kritiks: A bad Kritik debate is the WORST debate a judge can have. If you’re going for the K, don’t expect me to vote for 5 minute overviews with no line-by-line debating. I am familiar with a wide range of critical literature, but don't assume I know as much about your argument as you do - explanation in the final rebuttals is important. I'm not afraid to pull the trigger on dropped framework or alt solves the case arguments or other arguments that are alike those. Affirmatives should have to defend the representations of the 1ac. If you win framework, you probably win the debate. Unless its an impact turn debate. I usually think alternatives are as important and get meshed into the framework debate for the most part. Floating PIKs are probably illegit. If your alternative does something to change how we interpret the world, then fine. No fiating mindset changes though. The Link story is very important, if you can't explain the K, i'll be hard pressed to vote on it. What I would like to see, though, is specific link analysis with contextualization in the context of epistemology or other K tricks (Not link of ommissions, generic links, etc.).

K Affs: It isn't difficult to convince me that affirmative teams should read and defend a plan or AT LEAST be related to the topic. But good k teams can always convince me. Speed, flowing, etc are all good things. It isn't hard for the negative to convince me, but at the same time framework debates are not easy. The negative should be reading good arguments as to why your interpretation is good, not just Fairness arguments without an impact. I can still be convinced that debate should be used a a place for movements rather than a place for testing arguments-I try to be as unbiased as i can in these debates.

Disads/Case: There can be 0 risk of a DA from absolute defense, and existential risk doesn't necessarily mean i ignore how much you solve existential risk. The any risk logic is ridiculous, and isn’t nearly as criticized in debates as it should be. Link controls the direction of uniqueness. Disad Turns case arguments are more persuasive with explanations rather than with a bunch of cards. Politics Disads a great generic strat. They’re also easy to beat on the aff, especially on the internal link level.