Sayani,+Asad

__Background -__

Hebron High School '16 Cornell University '20 I debated LD on the national and local circuit in Dallas for 2 years.

__TL;DR -__


 * Do whatever you do best, just do it well. I don't want the fact that I am sitting in the back of the room to stop you from debating a certain way.

__Pref Shortcut -__


 * Policy/LARP - 1
 * K - 1-2
 * Theory - 2
 * FW - 3-4
 * Tricks - 3-4
 * General - 2

__Stylistic -__


 * I see myself being relatively easy with speaks, I don't think you need to have a perfect debate to get a 30. I do not care of your stylistic preferences, but if you do the "little things" I will give a boost to your speaks. Also if you disclose and disclose well, show me your Wiki and I will bump up your speaks. I will tell you clear/slow, but there is a limit. If you don't adjust to it, I just won't be able to flow.
 * I prefer fast debates over slow ones; I am relatively good with speed when it is clear. Clarity is the most important aspect to me when it comes to spreading. Slow down tags/authors/warrants of the evidence and any interps/texts, or I won't get it on my flow and you probably won't be happy come RFD.
 * Please email/flash, it is IMO one of the betters norms and if you do it'll make me happy, I don't think in LD people email/flash enough. asadsayani1998+debate@gmail.com
 * Also signpost very, very clearly otherwise I will have no idea what to do with what you are saying.

__Misc -__


 * Overviews make me happy, they break the round down, and help me see the big picture. Although I will vote on the line-by-line, winning the big picture just makes the ballot a lot easier to sign. If you make it easy for me to vote for you, I will.
 * I probably won't understand your arguments as well as you do, so make it as easy for me as possible, this can mean anything from slowing down on the complicated parts to having a really good overview or breaking down the high theory K after you get through it.
 * Compare and weigh offense in your rebuttals, although I am very lenient with extensions, if you do not compare and and weigh it would be very hard to win the round. Don't go for everything in the last speech.
 * CX is underutilized in debate, if you can break someones case by CX you will be rewarded, and if you can answer nitpicky questions about your case in CX you will be rewarded; however, if you cannot explain something about your own case in CX you will be penalized.

__Policy/LARP -__


 * This is what I predominantly read so I have some fairly good experience in the subject matter. The more unique your Advantages or DAs, the more fun I am going to have. I am very comfortable from anything from plans/util ACs to CPs and DAs.
 * Pointing out flaws in evidence is underrated; people don’t point out problems in evidence or logical fallacies in scenarios, it is an in insanely easy way to break down a bad argument.

__ Kritiks - __


 * Ks were probably what I read second most when I debates so I am fairly familiar with them. I predominantly read Economic (Capitalism) and Foucauldian literature, although I dabbed in to many other works. The more "high theory" lit you get into, the more work you're going to have to do to make me understand it. Don't take that as a warning to not read Deluze in front of me, just be very clear and explain the argument in comparison to the opponent.
 * I think when it comes to the K the most important thing is having a strong, topical link and good FW/ROB. Furthermore, the K doesn't just preclude the aff because it is a K, you must weigh the K against the AC and/or win a framework for the debate that prioritizes the K over the policy impacts (same goes with against theory).

__Theory/T -__


 * I do not care if you read frivolous theory or not, just read theory properly and not in a blippy format in which I cannot flow it. I think theory is something that can be used strategically and not necessarily to check abuse.
 * I am also pretty lenient with RVIs (on theory), and I think justifying an RVI, especially if it is a frivolous shell or you go all in on it, is not very hard.
 * One pet peeve of mine is people do not sign post at all when being responsive to theory, make it clear where on the shell you are and if you are reading a counterinterp let me know before hand because I like to flow counter interps on a different page. This also means that you should make it clear when you are moving from interp to another -- if you haven't figured it out, I don't mind theory at all but I have a hard time flowing it so don't loose me on the line by line.
 * You must spec wether it is drop the arg or drop the debater, if not you're going to have a bad time.

__Framework -__


 * I was never a strong FW debater, and I still don't understand what Kant is saying. Other than Util, Structural Violence, and some more K heavy lit, I never ventured out into the different frameworks.
 * Nevertheless I would rather see a good FW debate than a bad policy debate. As I judge more FW heavy debates I will update my paradigm, but don't hesitate to read these type of arguments infront of me, I appreciate it when a debater understands what they are reading, and can articulate it clearly.

__Tricks -__


 * I actually have never debated in/judged a tricks heavy round, I have not formed a strong opinion yet on this, so you can change my mind.
 * That being said, I will not vote of a quick 3 second blip you read in the 1AC that was not warranted out and spread so incomprehensibly that I couldn't flow it. If you can prove the abuse and impact it back to fairness/education I will be willing to vote of tricks.