Kumar,+Sonam

I don't really have a preference for arguments or arguments that I "like' or "dislike". Similarly to my coach (Jared Anderson) I believe that this is your debate to do what you like. I try not to use any previous dispositions in order to evaluate arguments and rely most on my flow. With that said, try to be as clear as possible. This doesn't mean that slowing down is necessary but don't sacrifice clarity for speed. I don't mind a little clash between debaters during cross-ex (since I can be considered a "snappy" debater), but have a very limited toleration if I see it becoming abusive. Explain your arguments - I expect some depth and won't connect the dots for you. Most importantly, as cynical as it sounds, remember to have fun. Debate is a learning activity and place for you to articulate yourself - so own it.

T/Theory - I do vote on T, even if it's a bad T argument - so make sure to answer it. Provide comprehensive reasons why I should/shouldn't vote on it, and usually a counter-interp along with some comparison will close/open the door for this debate. I usually err neg for multiple-CP's and conditionality, but not so easily on other theory (like PIC's, conditioned CP's, consult CP's, etc). A simple "Reject the arg, not the team" will usually suffice means to resolve theory/procedural args.

DA/CP - Although this area is pretty self explanatory, be aware simply a risk of a link doesn't mean anything to me. You must provide comparisons/calculations on the impact level and be sure to explain how your CP interacts.

K's - These are cool too. If I or anyone needs to re-think or re-conceptualize in order for your alt to solve, explain what that re-thinking means in the real world.

Paperless teams - I'll start running prep if I feel like you're taking too long.

I don't have peeves and don't mind if you call me "judge". Really though, you don't have to shake my hand after a round, or thank me for judging. :) If you need any clarification, you can email me at serrggg@gmail.com or ask me in-round.