Mallick,+Sohail

First off: No Spreading. I cannot follow fast, and will tell you to slow down. If you continue to be fast, I'm not going to be able to flow and/or follow your arguments. I've judged slow rounds in California, and I abide by the stock issue paradigm (Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, Disad). Here is a brief explanation on how I will evaluate your arguments.

Topicality: Give me an interpretation of the resolution and show how the affirmative team does not fall under that interpretation. Make logical arguments with evidence and I am more than happy to vote you up on topicality. If you read a silly violation (ie. T-Subs) I will have a hard time voting for you. Explain why that matter.

Harms: What are the problems in the status quo?

Inherency: Are steps being taken in the status quo to solve the harms?

Solvency: How does your plan specifically solve the harms?

Disadvantage: I am aware that there are very generic disadvantages such as the politics DA. I will tell you that I am not at all familiar with them; however, I am more than happy to judge a debate with a disadvantage that makes logical sense and is backed by evidence. Do not use jargon such as uniqueness, internal link, and link because I will not understand that. Do good work on the impact debate and prove that the disadvantage is worse than the harms of the affirmative.

NO Kritiks. Yes counterplans but for me, they are a question of which solves better: the plan or the counterplan. I will not evaluate your theory arguments..

Keep it slow, logical, and interesting. Make sure you make strong analytics and compare evidence. I will do my best to vote on argumentation alone as I do keep a flow; however, debate is a game of persuasion and that may very well make up my decision.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round begins and I'll be more than happy to discuss my decision.