Popatia,+Rizwan

__New Paradigm__

 I did LD debate at Kinkaid from 2009-13 Competed at state sophomore, junior and senior year.

I don't have any preference for any style of debate, whether it be "progressive" or "traditional". When I debated, I read more policy oriented arguments like plans, cps and das. I'm not too familiar with a lot of philosophy but as long as you know how to explain things, i should be fine.

speed - I'm fine with speed if you are clear. If you are not clear, i'll say "clear" a couple times and then will not stop flowing, but flow everything that i can understand

theory - try to run theory if there is actually abuse in the round. That said, if you are running "frivolous" theory, that doesn't mean I won't evaluate it, but will have a higher threshold. I default to competing interp unless you give reasons for me not to

prestandards - I don't have anything against prestandards, just against prestandards that are underdeveloped, shady and blippy. If you run bad prestandards, your speaks will reflect it

I'm fine with counterplans and disads and plans and kritiks as long as they are well explained, properly extended and weighed

speaker points - i base speaker points on how easy you make it for me to judge the round - clarity, good strategic decisions, etc.

__Old paradigm__

Two words: value clash

Whoever wins the value wins the debate. Game over. I especially enjoy the clash between the values of justice and morality. I think this is a key portion of the debate and so you should focus on it accordingly.

I evaluate issues by counting up the number of arguments each debater has made, subtracting the number of dropped arguments, and then determining who has the most net arguments. In the case of a tie, I revert to a paradigm of competing interpretations.

I also enjoy frivolous theory. I think that the more you can do to overly and unnecessarily complicate the round, the better. I rarely flow, so I generally assume that if your case makes sense, then it is probably bad and I will vote for your opponent.

I have found that affirmatives debaters generally need to spend more time constructing their linkage maps and making sure they have solid external links. This can really help you in difficult rounds.

I do not allow counterplans because this is LD not policy and we need to keep LD values based by banning logical arguments that encourage critical thinking and advocacy skills.

Additionally, I **have and will** vote on "new 2ar arguments good" run in the 2ar.