Rathod,+Sagar


 * *NOTA BENE: ** If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at okemosrr@gmail.com or just ask me before the round.
 * I am: **
 * Sagar Rathod
 * Junior at Michigan State University
 * Coach for Okemos High School
 * Quick: **
 * Tech > Truth.
 * I'll listen to Policy, Kritikal with a Plan, Planless, Affirmations, Advocacies, Anything. Just give me solid reasons as to why your arguments and form of argumentation is good.
 * Tell me how you'd like me to frame the round.
 * Affect gets speaker points, but line-by-line wins debates.
 * Judged over 100 rounds since August 2014.
 * Add me to the email chain: **okemosrr@gmail.com.**
 * Disclosure, especially on the Wiki, is pretty cool (I don't think 2AC or Neg Block disclosure is necessary, tbh)
 * **Aff** -- if your 1AC is on the Wiki before the round and you tell me, I'll add 0.1 to your speaker points
 * **Neg** -- if your 1NC cites are on the Wiki after the round ends and you tell me, I'll add 0.1 to your speaker points
 * Kritiks: **
 * They’re p dope.
 * Very familiar with Afropessimism, Baudrillard, Psychoanalysis, and Deleuze.
 * Familiar with Bataille and Nietzsche.
 * **Neg:**
 * Specific links are awesome. Frame the 1AC (reps/action of the plan) around your links.
 * The burden of the Neg is to prove the Aff is a bad idea, so you don't need an Alt to win my ballot.
 * If you are going for the alt, you have to do a good job explaining what the world of the alternative is going to look like.
 * “K tricks” are cool, but only when explained and contextualized.
 * Please don’t contradict yourself. Know what your philosophers defend and what they don’t.
 * **Aff:**
 * Generic “Ks bad” frameworks are not great.
 * Perms are your best friends. Multiple perms are encouraged.
 * Please answer the specific links.
 * “Policy tricks” like Extinction outweighs, pragmatism, institutions key, etc. are actually very persuasive to me when explained well. Call out the Neg for mis-handling these types of arguments.
 * Framework: **
 * I have voted for this on multiple occasions.
 * Debate the impacts.
 * ** Neg: **
 * “They took my DAs” is not a good impact to Framework.
 * Impacts like procedural fairness and truth-testing need to be explained and contextualized to the broader schema of debate.
 * You need to win that your model of debate is good, not just that the Aff’s model is bad.
 * You need to win that the game is good before you can win that your model of the game is good.
 * ** Aff: **
 * I enjoy it when K-Aff teams impact turn the Neg’s model of debate rather than meet it.
 * Case: **
 * People should debate this more.
 * Impact turns are awesome.
 * Extinction Good is a valid argument. Racism/Sexism/Discrimination/etc. Good is not.
 * However, if you can’t answer racism good effectively, you probably deserve to lose.
 * Topicality: **
 * I love T.
 * **Neg:**
 * Why should I prefer your interpretation (Standards)?
 * What are the Impacts to T (Voters)?
 * Why do those Impacts matter?
 * These questions should be answered by the end of the 2NR. I expect a 5 minute 2NR on T if you plan on going for it.
 * **Aff:**
 * Please provide Counter-Standards, or else you will be at a HUGE disadvantage.
 * Give me explicit reasons as to why T is not a voter.
 * Reasonability is reasonable, but should be supplemented with more arguments.
 * DisAds: **
 * Explain the scenario of the DA. The more specific the link, the better.
 * Paint me a picture in the Neg Block. I love overviews, even tiny ones.
 * Impact Calc in the 2NR is required (Timeframe, Probability, Magnitude).
 * CPs: **
 * They’re p dope.
 * More specific, the better.
 * Theory: **
 * Be clear when reading your theory blocks.
 * Make the impacts clear.
 * Speaking: **
 * Be clear, duh.
 * I give high speaks to people who make coherent arguments that I think contributed most to the final decision of the round.
 * Doing cool things like not taking any prep (and winning) may be rewarded with higher speaks.
 * I generally don't give speaks lower than 27.0 and higher than 29.5.
 * Clipping: **
 * Clipping is cheating. Clipping will be punishable by an L and 0 speaker points. Accusing Team must provide proof. If proof is deemed insufficient, Accusing Team will receive an L and 0 speaker points.
 * Misc: **
 * I don’t take prep for flashing — just don’t take too long.
 * I don't mind tag-teaming in CX — just don’t make it excessive.
 * CX is generally reflected in speaker points.
 * Don't be rude. Be honest. Have fun! **