Singhal,+Pankhuri

Pankhuri Singhal Bishop Guertin High School '12 Northeastern University '17

-First tournament judging on this topic is the Big Lex 2014 tournament

The round is yours; make the most of every part of it, including cx. I do not come into the round with any preconceived notions, run any argument you want, construct it well. Evidence, impact calc, and warrants are a must!

1. Interpretation of the Round- In any round, I will default to the lens of a policymaker unless I am given a reason to do so otherwise.

2. Theory/Topicality- I like a well-developed, nuanced topicality argument. Slow down on theory in the constructives. During the rebuttals, really explain each argument instead of merely making generic extensions. I prefer a debate of competing interpretations, which means research should be done very carefully. Don’t bother with a T that doesn't have a solid definition. With that being said, reasonability is a good argument when explained as a reason why the affirmative does not need to win a superior counter-interpretation.

3. Disads/Case- Always a solid choice. Politics is great. It's important to not only have the cards but to be able to articulate the disad scenario. Case work is critical for neutralizing the aff impacts and making impact calculus in the later speeches a lot more difficult.

4. Kritiks- Always need to be argued in terms of the aff; negative should be utilizing arguments like K turns case and alt solves the aff to win this flow. The neg should always tailor their links and alternatives to the affirmative at hand. With that being said, I don’t think that alternatives are necessarily key to winning a K, the neg just needs a reason to reject the aff.

5. CPs- Counterplans exist as competitive options against the affirmative. A well-developed PIC will take you a long way. As a former 2A, I have never been a fan of agent CPs because they are usually just generically piled on in the 1NC as a time skew for the 2A. Be strategic in terms of how much solvency the counterplan can actually garner.

6. Performance- If this is the style of debate you are going for, that’s fine but make sure you supplement your performance with evidence and you actually engage the other side in what they are saying. Way too many of these debates become one sided with very low clash. I am persuaded more by topicality arguments rather than framework arguments, in terms of defending the resolution/whether debating about the resolution is good. If you do go the topicality route, be sure to isolate your internal links in the standards part of the debate.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at pankhuri.singhal12@gmail.com