Shankar,+Ravi

Glenbrook South HS
School Strikes = Glenbrook South HS

I debated at GBS and Northwestern, having graduated two years ago. I have **not judged** on this topic (but in colleged judged fairly often), which means that for complex, technical, or non intuitive arguments, I need more background. For Topicality, I do not have a sense of how small or large the topic is or what the scope of renewable policy should be. So on these issues, the **quality of the arguments** will likely matter more than the number.

Regarding theory, I have found the quality of the debate to be much better with the **liberal use of evidence to establish common propositions** such as education, the possibility of an infinite number of PICs, etc. Whether we should look at policy on the ground or from a bird's eye view changes by the issue and evidence helps establish that. I do not really have an concrete opinion either way on conditionality.

A couple insights into how I assess debates 1) **Impacts matter a lot** and generally, shape which order I look at things. If a small risk of a big impact matters more than a large risk of a smaller impact, then the issue to me is whether there is that small risk because if there is, then the smaller impact doesn't matter (as much). This said, I find just reading a lot of the same impact cards redundant. **Time is better spent reading comparative impact cards** which go much farther for the above reason. One impact with a lot of great comparison trumps many impacts with little to none. This is not just how I think about DAs and advantages but also kritiks, theory, etc. 2) Quality of evidence generally trumps spin. And **qualifications are drastically underused** (e.g., what a professor has to say about an issue deserves much more credit than any student note).