Nagesh,+Nitesh

Loyola Marymount University '17 Lynbrook High '13

I debated policy for one year and public forum for two during my high school career. This means that I am a well-educated and intelligent judge who flows and understands debate in general, but I am not familiar with the nuances of LD. Briefly stated, I will vote on any argument that you explain to me clearly, except theory, which I do not condone. My specific views are below:

**Speed** I was somewhat familiar with speed when I did policy, but I have not heard spreading for 3 years so please go at a moderate speed. I will yell "slow" if I would like you to slow down.

**Theory** I do not want to listen to debaters complain about negligent amounts of abuse that occurred in rounds. Therefore, I will not, under any circumstances, vote for theory and will give you terrible speaker points if you run theory in front of me so please do not.

**Traditional LD Structure** I am familiar with the Value-Value Criterion structure of LD and will not vote for any impacts that fall out of the scope of the Value Criterion that won. I also will not consider any new arguments in the 2AR or responses to arguments you previously dropped.

**Philosophy** Philosophy is the area of LD debate that I am least familiar with. I understand a generic util framework and calculus well. In terms of other frameworks, feel free to run them in front of me but make sure to clearly explain what exactly the frameworks mean as well as which impacts I should consider and how I should weigh impacts under the framework.

**Kritiks** I am vaguely familiar with the structure of Kritiks and their pre-fiat nature from the year I did policy. However, I am not familiar with K lit. Therefore, if you would like to run a K, feel free to, but please clearly explain the cards you read, the pre-fiat implications of the K (if applicable), and the role of the ballot.

**Plans/Dis-ads/Counter-Plans** I am fairly well-versed in these from my year of policy, so feel free to read them. However, as always, make sure you clearly explain everything of importance.

**Eloquence/Perceptual Dominance** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Because I did public forum for a decent amount of my high school career, eloquence and perception is quite important to me. I will not give you a loss simply for lacking eloquence, but I will not hesitate to give you very low speaker points.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">Simply stated, I am an intelligent judge that will flow and am open to voting on anything you explain clearly to me. However, because I am unfamiliar with the nuances of LD, it would benefit you if you crystallized well at the end of the round to clarify the layers of the debate that were present in the round and clearly explain to me why you believe you won. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.7272720336914px;">I wrote this paradigm with a friend who is currently a circuit LD debater, so it should accurately apply to current LD practices. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.