Udawala,+Akil

Debate Experience - I am currently debating for Trinity University and previously debated in high school for Clear Lake High School. Disclaimer: These are just general preferences and can be changed based on arguments made in round.

**Quick Thoughts -**

 * Debate however you want to, I am receptive to most if not all arguments (this doesn't mean I won't vote on framework, I just won't automatically presume against an aff that doesn't defend the topic).
 * I think debate is first and foremost an educational activity, so be cordial to your opponents.
 * The most important question of the debate in many instances is what is the role of my ballot/ what does each side hope to accomplish, so I think you should spend a lot of time on these questions and make sure they are fleshed out, or I will find it hard to vote for you.
 * My ideal 2NR is probably a smart CP with a DA and/or case turns
 * I really like creative and case specific arguments (whether policy or otherwise)
 * I generally do not think it is possible to win a debate without any offense (i.e. no such thing as "zero risk") but I could be swayed depending on arguments made in round.
 * A good 1NC usually has multiple possible 2NR options, tunnel vision-ing on your most familiar or favorite argument is an easy trap to fall into, try to avoid it.
 * Debate is still a communicative activity, so persuasion is important.
 * Jokes are appreciated.

**Specific Arguments**

 * Types of affirmatives -** As stated above, I am receptive to any sort of affirmative, whether it is more traditional/policy or performative/ based in the lived experience of the affirmative team to anything in between. I am willing to vote either way on framework, but I generally believe the best arguments against these affs are specific K's.

On questions of conditionality, I can go either way, I think a clear counter interpretation is necessary. The interpretations function as a kind of plan/ counterplan debate, so the offense should be DA's specific to each other's interpretations. These debates often come down to the question of "why is 2 worse than 3" or something similar, so having your arguments tailored to your specific number of advocacies under your interpretation goes a long way
 * T/ Theory/ FW** - I default to competing interpretations on these questions. I have a pretty high threshold for pulling the trigger on blippy/ bad theory arguments (like making a severance perm is a voter) so unless it is dropped and has really good analysis, I probably won't vote on it. Otherwise, for most theory arguments, the debates can be fun, just make sure not to read blocks at each other and actually debate it.

I like T debates, I think T is sometimes underutilized by teams against borderline topical affirmatives. I generally do not think in-round abuse matters, the debate is about setting a precedent/ framework under which all debates should be analyzed, not necessarily this specific debate, but examples of in-round abuse can be useful from a more rhetorical perspective.

On questions of framework, some of the more old-school arguments can be unpersuasive (i.e. saying all k's are cheating) but these can be good debates as well.

Remember to SLOW DOWN on these debates, pen time is needed most on these args compared to others.


 * DA's** - They exist. Sometimes they are good, often they are bad. The thing I look for in DA debates is a clear internal link chain, lots of impact comparison/ DA turns case analysis, and I think it can often be very difficult to win a DA by itself without case defense (and that goes for most policy arguments, there needs to be case defense in the 1NC). The more case specific, the better, clever DA's/ clever strats in general are rewarded with high speaks.


 * CP's** - Also a thing. A lot of the DA stuff applies here as well, I like specific counterplans or less specific advantage-counterplans. These paired with case defense and a DA can be killer. Some of the more theoretically suspect counterplans (like consult, delay, word PICs, counterplans with conditional planks) need a robust theoretical defense in the block.


 * Kritiks** - These can be the most fun debates of all to judge, but are often the worst. I am pretty familiar with most mainstream K's, but if your kritik is more obscure, clear analysis/ overviews giving the general story of the argument is important. That being said, I like learning new things, so if you have an off-the-wall K, don't be afraid to read it. I think the weakest part of a K is almost always alt solvency and in my experience is also one of the least talked about parts of the K, so affs should focus in here. K's can be very strategic and have a lot of little tricks, utilize them if you are good at them. If you are unfamiliar with the lit base, the debate can be painful to judge, so make sure you're pretty familiar with an argument before you try to go for it. Specific, rather than generic K's, are I think one of the most devastating arguments in debate.