Mouli,+Vibav

Vibav Mouli McDonogh 2012 Harvard 2016

I debated at McDonogh high school in Maryland for four years. I ran a variety of arguments from pure policy affs to kritikal race affs so I'm pretty open to any argument as long as you're persuasive. Explain why you deserve my ballot and you'll get it. Here are a bunch of random notes that I've thought about in one sitting, but again I can be convinced against my predispositions.

- **Affs**: I like teams that use the offense of their aff against the neg. It kind of sucks when teams forget about their 1AC after the 1AC, it's a constructive for a reason so use it to your advantage. I will read as many cards as I need to at the end of the round, so if you really think your cards are better on a certain matter really talk them up to me and make use of them. - **politics Disads:** awesome, make sure you have a really specific link and I can be convinced. But don't just have block come up and read a bunch of cards and expect a vote. I think its far more important to answer everything on the flow and make smart, analytical responses. - **topicality**: I understand the appeal of procedural arguments and the importance of talking about how a debate round should work, but I like substance more than procedure. Again, if something's just untopical and you explain how so, I'm fairly sure I can pull the trigger, but if it's a really nuanced argument I would crystallize it for me and spend a little more time explaining what the significance of that particular round is in the context of the debate community / the season etc. - **theory**: look to my notes on T, but I do think theory is kind of a time suck. Don't just put out 8 theory arguments in the 2AC to make the neg block answer them and then go for the one they undercovered because it's probably not that convincing - **competition** is probably a good thing, so I wouldn't be a fan of running a courts counterplan against the USFG or the like. States and international actors are great and much more applicable to the real-world anyway. - **speed** is fine with me, but I do appreciate clear tag lines; I find there's a dearth of debaters these days who really take the time to make sure the judge is on the same page as they are. Being clear is far better than being fast. - **paperless**: time stops when the USB is out of your laptop, pretty standard nowadays
 * - case** - I love case args, especially if they actually make sense and are well articulated. 2ACs get away with blippy arguments on the case despite the fact that it's probably the most important thing in the round. I like when negatives sit on case for a bit in the block going down the flow and making smart arguments; that'll really come in handy for me at the end of the round when I do my own little impact analysis. Defense is always a solid idea.
 * - Ks**: I ran Heidegger all senior year and a race kritik for two years so I understand the basics of a kritik and how it's presented. However, if you're one of those teams that's all about one particular, complex critique I really need you to explain it to me. It's unfortunate for you if I end up voting against you because I don't understand something. I don't think that I could stress that part more when it comes to very detailed arguments. Framework is super important as well for Ks so I don't care how long you spend on the K proper if you don't win f/w.

Anything else, just ask me. I'm pretty chill.