Pandey,+Rishika

Woodward Academy Class of 2017

I'm a senior at Woodward Academy and I've debated policy throughout high school.

General comments:
1. Be nice. There's a difference between confidence and rudeness, and I will definitely dock speaker points if you are rude/offensive to anyone in the room at any point during the round.

2. If I have to remind you to be clear, then you shouldn't expect speaker points above a 28. Debate is about communication: if I can't understand you, you're doing it wrong.

3. Cross ex is super important. Don't steal your partner's CX, interrupt someone else's CX, or any variation of such.

4. Prep-time: I will stop the timer when you tell me the speech doc is done; however, if it takes you longer than 10 seconds to email/flash the speech to everyone, I'll probably be suspicious and start prep time.

5. I will read evidence if I think that both sides have presented nuanced explanations as to why this evidence is important to the debate.

6. Absolute defense is possible and I won't hesitate to vote on it if I believe the debaters have sufficiently proven it.

7. Evidence - don't underhighlight, clip, or do any of that cheat-y stuff. You're not as cool or sneaky as you think you are. I will know.

Honestly, whatever you want to debate, debate it. Just do it well.

Specific arguments:
T - Nuanced T debates are great. Reasonability is probably a good argument if the negative interpretation is meta and non-specific to the aff. You need to do a good job explaining what the topic would look like under your interpretation and providing clear case lists and DAs to the other team's interpretation.

DAs - Aff-specific DAs are just about my favorite arguments ever because they demonstrate preparedness and in-depth research. On the other hand, I'm fine listening to politics and other general topic DAs (although you'll have to do more work to convince me why your generic budget or trade-off DA can link to the aff). Impact calculus and turns case analysis are essential.

CPs - Again, specific strategies are usually the way to go here. I'm a huge fan of the advantage CP+DA or case turn strategy. Process CPs are generally bad. I can be persuaded that word PICs are okay if you present a lot of great evidence and analysis on why a certain word has an extremely negative effect on the round. I'm more aff-leaning on CP theory (it's probably cheaty), but that shouldn't discourage you from defending your CP. If you want me to "judge-kick" a CP, give me a good reason to. Overall, if you think you have a great solvency advocate for your CP, go ahead and debate it.

Theory - Slow down on theory and be clear if you want me to really evaluate it. Politics theory is fine as a time-skew, but I'm not very likely to vote on it. Condo is usually okay if there are only 1-2 conditional advocacies; any more is probably excessive, and I can be persuaded that they're abusive. Floating PIKs/PICs are generally abusive. In most cases, I'll reject the argument and not the team (unless convinced otherwise).

Ks - I'm fine with most critiques, but not necessarily all of the high-theory, named-after-a-French-philosopher critiques. If you don't think you'll be able to explain a K in a manner that would make sense to a teacher, then it's probably not a good idea to read it in front of me. Generic Ks are mehh, but I'll listen to them. The best Ks are contextualized to the aff (using aff evidence as links). Clear explanations and in-depth analysis will most likely help you win a K debate in front of me. Technique is important, but trickery/confusing words will not automatically win you the round.

Affs/case - They must be topical. Affs should generally have a plan text/advocacy statement, but I'll listen to affs that don't. Also, case debates are AWESOME and way too undervalued - I love impact turns, alt causes, link turns, etc. Be innovative.

My email is rgirl9904@gmail.com - I will be happy to answer any questions pre- or post-round.