Sangha,+Karan

Hi, my name’s Karan and I’m relatively new to the Forensics community. I have very little experience in judging LD, so keep that in mind throughout the round. I value the education of debate very highly, so do NOT spread or I will drop you, as I believe that spreading doesn’t give you any useful real-life experience.

I like well reasoned arguments with warrants. For me, an argument without a warrant is not an argument and I will not consider it. However, don't confuse this with me needing a philosopher to tell me something. I want you to provide me with logical warrants, and if you have evidentiary warrants, that's just icing on the cake. I’d like you to tell my why YOUR argument is better than your opponents, whether it be through impacts, or strength of warrants.

I want you to connect your arguments back to your Value/Criterion, and I need a reason why your value and criterion is better.

I will not accept any form of alternative cases (e.g. no Kritiks, no Disads), and I will always prefer a standard case above an alternative case. Don’t attempt to run these or you will be penalized both through speaks and through me making you lose the round.

Essentially, I want you to convince me of why your argument is better. I want you to be convincing, and I don’t want you to spread or do anything progressive. I am strongly traditional and I require you to tell me why each of your arguments should be preferred over your opponents, why they are important, and why your arguments are true.