Patel,+Neil+D.

=
I competed for Plano West in 2016. I come mostly from an extemp/congress/PF background and I have a small amount of competitive experience in UIL LD, but I've judged a decent amount of rounds post-grad, so I'm comfortable with pretty much any argument, even if I don't have the exact jargon in my vocabulary!=====

TL;DR:
- speed is fine - theory, T are hit or miss with me unless there's a blatant abuse story - I have a very low threshold for responses against PICs and skep bc I don't like those arguments - open to pretty much any well-warranted argument/style

=
I don't flow CX, so please make sure you repeat important information from CX in your speeches. Although I recommend that 2Rs respond to attacks made by the 1R, I'm not going to count it as a drop if you don't respond to it all. I'm not a fan of pro teams running overviews that say "x is inevitable give us all offense from the neg" unless you have really damning evidence that is actually is inevitable. I default that lack of solvency/offense on AFF is a reason to vote NEG.=====

=
I don't mind speed at all, as long as you include me in the email chain! I'm pretty insistent that you flash your cases to your opponent if they ask. I'm willing to drop debaters for not flashing cases for fairness reasons.=====

=
Truth > Tech for the most part. If you're clearly saying stuff that is offensive or objectively wrong, I will call you out on it on the ballot, and if you're misrepresenting very well-known philosophy, I'll factor that in my decision. That being said, I'm not gonna penalize you for minor slip ups if you're not called out on it by your opponent.=====

I think that the AFF's territory is sacred. The NEG can't win off of just slightly altering the advocacy of the AFF. So basically, I'm not a fan of PICs. But, if you can prove that the AFF has no offense or solvency, I'll defer NEG.

=
K: I like these, but nobody wins the oppression olympics :(. Intersectionality matters, don't turn the entire debate into whether feminism, disability, or racism is worse, make sure that you have cards that link different forms of oppression. I really need a strong alt, or I won't vote on the K.=====

=
Skep: I have such a low threshold for responses skep arguments because they ruin the debate. Literally all you have to do is read some Nietzsche argument about nihilism and that's good enough for me. Don't run skep unless you absolutely think it's necessary.=====

=
Roleplay/Performance: Talk to me before round, I evaluate these on a case-by-case basis. I have strong opinions about whether or not you can roleplay and speak for other marginalized minority groups/co-opt their narratives/identities.=====

=
As a general rule of thumb, I'm decently familiar with most major philosophers, but please don't expect me to know random cards you cite. I hate when debaters just say "*insert name*, 2008" and jump straight to the conclusion and expect me to buy it as fact. Give me the logic behind the card, because for all I know you just quoted your little brother or something. Also, evidence is really important to me. Sketchy cutting will at best lose you speaker points and at worst lose you the round. Where you get your evidence matters to me. I'll trust a card from Brookings over a random conspiracy theorist's blog, no matter how damning the card might be.=====

=
Please don't be rude, sexist, or patronizing to younger debaters in round. If you're repeatedly talking over opponents or being condescending, I'll slash your speaks. If you take advantage of the fact that you're debating a complete novice and just trash them, I'll slash your speaks.=====