Parashar,+Anika

Anika (Nikki) Parashar, Policy Debater at the Paideia School. Email: thetromboneninja@gmail.com

30: You can break at Tournament of Champions. 30-29.5: You can win this tournament. 29.5-28.5: You can break at this tournament. 28.5-27.5: No major errors, but some minor mistakes/flaws in the performance. 27.5-27: A few major errors that were turning points in the debate. 27-26.5: Lots of major errors, unclear. Sub 26.5: Horribly unclear, or you did something that offended me.
 * Speaker Points: **

1. Know what you're reading, and make analytical arguments. If you want high speaks, don't just read cards that you don't understand. 2. I can flow fast spreading, but for higher speaks, I prefer slower, clear speaking over unclear, fast spreading. 3. Weigh your arguments during the debate, don't make me do the work for you. 4. I have preferences, but if you aren't familiar debating according to my preferences, please run what you're most comfortable with. 5. I will vote on pretty much anything if needed (such as conceded arguments) as long as the opposing team mentions conceded arguments and why their impact matters. 6. Slow down on tags and authors, and when making analytical arguments for better speaks.
 * General Preferences: **

**Kritiks**: I thoroughly enjoy a good Kritik debate; Kritiks are one of my favorite things in debate. If you choose to run a Kritik, make sure to include a Role of the Ballot or other framework arguments. I also love Impact Core + Kritiks.

**CPs**: I'm not a big counterplan debater, but I think counterplans can be effective. I'm not a fan of Plan-Inclusive Counterplans, so if the aff runs a good theory argument against it, I'll most likely not vote on it.

**Topicality**: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I will most definitely want to vote on a strong T argument against an aff that's clearly untopical/doesn't link. If the plan is topical, but the aff concedes T/doesn't answer it sufficiently, I will vote neg, but I won't be too happy about it.

**Theory**: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">An argument on actual abuse (not potential abuse) in the round will most likely be a key voting issue for me.

**Other**: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">1. CX: I'm going to listen during cross-x, but it's not necessarily affect my decision. If you get a major concession in cross-x, make sure to bring it up in the following speech. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">2. Flashing/Email Chain: Personally, I prefer an email chain. Include me in the email chain. I don't take prep for flashing, so say "stop prep" before emailing/flashing the files. If you take more than 30ish seconds, I will start prep. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">3. Don't be rude to me or the other team. This will plummet your speaks. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">4. I love capitalst/environmental arguments (pro or against, whatever). <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">5. Disclosure: Please disclose. I will probably get annoyed if I see you not disclosing info to the other team. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">6. Clash is important.