Balachundhar,+Nirmal

Debated LD in high school. Lexington '17 Northwestern '21 Qualified to TOC and had some bids I debate for Northwestern Policy now.

General: - Speed is fine, please be clear, I'll call it as many times necessary but I will get frustrated and dock speaks - I won't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, it is your responsibility to explain that - Prep stops after you have compiled your stuff into one document. If you're flashing- it stops after the flashdrive leaves your computer - I'm comfortable with most arguments as long as you can explain and weigh them explicitly and clearly - Disclosure is good norm- if you don't disclose or disclose insufficiently and it's brought up in the round, I will dock your speaks by 1-5 speaker points (based on how I am feeling about this violation) from whatever I would have given you, but I will still evaluate the theory debate and the rest of the round. - You must make your evidence available - I enjoy policy debates the most, please weigh - I also enjoy theory debates that are well executed
 * LD:**

Policy-esque arguments: - Impact comparison and weighing is crucial, otherwise i have no idea where to look first - Utilize argument diversity - Framing is very important, if you don't explain implications of winning arguments, then i don't know their use even if you have won them - please compare evidence - i personally think that hard work should be rewarded, so well executed strategies will increase your speaks

Phil: - I understand the basics of most theories/general responses. If this is what you're good at- feel free to go for it. - Explanation is crucial, your framework should be organized in a well explained syllogism, and your explanation should follow from that - A lot of people just don't cut evidence that warrants their philosophical arguments or use big buzzwords when going for philosophical arguments- don't do that - Be comparitive: reading dumps on their ethic is insufficient, explain why your ethic is better

Kritik: - Please have good evidence and diversify/nuance your kritik and when you respond to it - Tech and ethos are both very important on the K debate, make sure that you can do both - Long dumps and generic responses aren't that great, make them better by tailoring it to the round and explaining the 2NR or 1AR against these very well - I am pretty convinced by policymaking arguments against these, that being said, be super responsive and err on the side of overexplanation against these - Not well read in high theory, my understanding will solely depend on your ability to explain it.

Theory: - Default to competing interps, no rvi, drop debater- will still be convinced by arguments for other sides - Frivolous theory: I will listen to it because it is strategic but if it's clear that it's used as argument avoidance and just for strategy rather than actual abuse, I probably won't be too thrilled and that might reflect in your speaks - Good theory debates are better to watch especially when they are utilized well against tricks and abuse- - Weighing and framing is important

Tricks: - Not a fan of- they prioritize gimmicks over hard work which isn't what educational activities should do - I will still listen to them but they will reflect in your speaks - Implications need to be clear in the initial speech - these include: a prioris, triggers, INCOHERENT framework applications, etc. - If you come up with some very nuanced and interesting applications against various scenarios, then I'll probably be more receptive to it.

Evidence Ethics: If you are caught clipping, it will result in a Loss 0. That being said, if you accuse someone of an evidence ethics violation and you are proven to be wrong, the same punishment will be given to you. Accidentally skipping 2 words in a card is not clipping. Clearly miscut evidence or misrepresentation should be brought up by opposing debaters in round as evidence indicts.