Jindal,+Sonam

I debated at Presentation High School in San Jose, CA for 4 years on both the local and national circuit.

Really just justify everything, compare arguments, and make the round super clear to me and I will be happy. But more specifically:

1) Warrant your arguments and explain their impact/function. A claim isn't good enough. Develop all of your arguments, no matter what they are. Your extensions also need to be warranted/impacted/explained.

2) Weigh your arguments. I would rather not interfere in the round or have to interpret how you want your arguments to function. It also makes for good debate. The better you clarify how different arguments interact in the round, the less time I have to spend interfering after the round. Do not leave it to me to determine what arguments matter most in the round. The more work you do, the less work I do, the happier I am and the happier you will be(I promise).

3) I am open to any warranted argument. However, if you run something morally offensive, you can count on me to be biased against you. I am open to kritiks/critical positions as long as they are explained well, make sense, and are relevant to the topic(this is especially important). Discursive impacts are fine. Please do not spread a obscure philosophical theory and expect me to understand. I'm not saying don't run these arguments, I'm just saying you need to develop them better and not go too quickly. I will not pretend to understand something that I don't understand and wasn't articulated in round.

4) I prefer more developed substance debates, because those rounds are more exciting to watch. I'm not a huge fan of meta-ethics, skepticism in debate rounds...they are great for lengthy conversations outside of debate rounds though :).

5) Speed-My ability to flow extremely fast rounds has significantly decreased since I haven't really had to flow in quite some time now. I can handle speed, but it's in your best interest to go at a safe speed and speak clearly. I will yell "clear", "slow", "louder" a couple of times depending on what is relevant. If I'm not writing anything down during your speeches, that should be a good indication that you need to fix something. If you have a 2 sentence apriori, that's supposed to somehow eliminate all of your opponents offense, spewed somewhere in the middle of your case, you can count on me to miss it. IMPT: PLEASE slow down for tags/authors.

6) Theory-I think that theory should only be run when there is actual abuse that is significantly hindering your ability to win a round. If you make a fair point, I will vote for you. I think there is always room to use theoretical arguments to exclude your opponents arguments as opposed to win a round right away. RVI's- I think RVI's are fine...I will evaluate them the same way I evaluate Theory. I will be critical of your shells/RVI's. I really hope this doesn't need to be said, but if I'm going to vote on theory, I need you to present a clear Interpretation, abuse, standards, link to the voter, and a voter. If you run theory poorly or as a time suck, I will be unhappy. Like any other argument in the round, I will only vote for it if I think it is sufficiently developed.

7)Absent relevant argumentation, I will default to Comparative worldviews over truthtesting.

Speaker Points. I think they are important. I'm not going to give out points for people who say cute things. They will be assigned based on the following:

Things I liked in debate: Debate/Clash/Comparative Arguments/Cross-Applying arguments strategically/Weighing/Interestingly unique arguments/topical arguments/relevant critical arguments/Strategic choices/focusing on developing important args/Clever arguments

Things I didn't like in debate: Stupid Arguments/Warrant-less arguments/bad theory/obscure positions with weak links to the topic/douche bags who didn't respect their opponents(be nice to the freshmen at their first varsity tournament)

Ask me any questions before/after the round, feel free to sit the entire time, be comfortable, and HAVE FUN!