Savani,+Milan

I was a 2A formerly debating for The St. Mark's School of Texas. I just graduated high school, and my 4th and a half year debating (starting partially on the alternative energy topic, but social services was my first full year, followed by military, space, then this year's topic [transportation infrastructure]) This is my second year judging.
 * 1. Me: **

Below are some important things that you might want to know about me and how I feel.

I debated on the TI topic all year, and went to camp at the Georgetown Debate Seminar. I debated many rounds this year at Greenhill, Grapevine, the Glenbrooks, Heritage Hall, Colleyville, the NDCA Championships, and more, debating many different arguments. I didresearch on our squad, so I know about many of the important mainstream arguments in the literature.
 * 2. Familiarity with the topic: **

I’m a 2A. At camp I read the HSR and NextGen affs, then during the season I read the ITV aff, then the NIB aff. In my negative rounds at camp and during the season, I have taken a host of different arguments. I’m not very well-versed in critical literature, so expect me to be highly confused if you end up going for a critique without some simple English explanations.

Here’s a link to my wiki page where you can see the affs I’ve read and the 1NC strategy, block division, and 2NR choice in every round that I’ve debated in this year: http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2012-2013+-+St.+Mark%27s+%28TX%29+-+Milan+Savani+%26+Meyer+Thalheimer.

I can generally keep up as long as you are clear. If you are not clear, I will make it known. If your clarity does not improve after several prompts, I will stop prompting and hope that I can make heads or tails of what you said. I will not stop flowing but it will probably be obvious that I cannot comprehend what you're saying. I will give leeway to the other team if you’re imcomprehensible.
 * 3. Rate of delivery: **

Assuming that you don't have case-specific strategies and all these arguments are debated equally well, my list from best to worst would be: Topic DA + Case Politics + Case
 * 4. 2NR strategy preference: **

Topic T Argument

Politics + Process CP Impact Turning all Advantages <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Entirely Plan Inclusive CP with Internal Net Benefit <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Topic K Generic.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">A note on specificity: It trumps everything. I want to see your amazing case-specific strategy, even if it includes some crazy critique (don’t read that as a pass to read Battaile, I mean a critique intricately tied to the action of the plan).

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">A note on some of your more arcane arguments: Ashtar, Baudrillard, Wipeout, Timecube, Spark, [insert craziness here]: none of them will work for me. Please don’t subject me to them.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">A note on topicality: I've become a lot more accepting of this argument over the past year. I'm much more receptive to hearing these kinds of arguments, as long as the aff actually violates a reasonable interpretation.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">A note on counterplans: I’m not the with your executive order CP or congress CP, but if they have to do, they'll have to do. I do like a good advantage counterplan, though.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Are Cheap Shots Voters? It depends for me. If you say, "The sky is blue, that's a voter," for me to vote on it you have to articulate a reason (that makes sense in any tangential interpretation of the word 'reason') that I should. If the other team then does not adequately answer it, I will vote on it. If you’re obviously hiding it in the middle of the flow baiting the other team to drop it and it’s completely stupid, I don’t think its worth your time.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13pt;">5. Cheap shots: **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">If your framework changes my decision from a yes/no policy paradigm I will not be happy, but I will allow it. On the aff, make arguments about judge choice against representations critiques and use framework to make sure that you can utilize your advantages and to check critical frameworks. I default to a framework of being a policymaker, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear about the ethical implications of the plan at all. I think that fiat is a good tool even though nothing happens when I sign the ballot. If you’re aff, you have no excuse not to defend the implementation of a topical plan. If you’re neg and you debate an aff like that, framework is a good option in front of me. That doesn’t mean that affirmatives can’t have critical advantages, though. On the neg, don’t try to cheat with a critical framework. You’ll only make me mad.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13pt;">6. Framework: **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">I'll try not to let my biases influence me, and anything here is subject to change if you make an argument about it during the round.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13pt;">7. Counterplan acceptability: **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Conditionality: I don't think that having a ridiculous number of conditional advocacies is a good thing. I can understand why some teams would need to read multiple conditional advocacies against some affirmatives. If you are going to debate about conditionality in front of me, please don't just read your theory blocks. I think that going for conditionality when there is only one conditional advocacy is not a good idea. One counterplan and 1 critique is hard to win in front of me, but I could be convinced that it is necessary to test the aff from multiple angles. More than that and your defense becomes much tougher.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Consult/Condition: I'm not a fan of Consult and Condition counterplans - I will lean aff on questions of theory, but will understand if the aff is so squirrely that it necessitates using these counterplans. However, I don't think that reading one of these counterplans is a reason to reject the team. One exception: if your counterplan actually has a solvency advocate that's pretty specific, I'll like it. A good example is some versions of conditioning from the military topic, especially in the context of Korea.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Process: Same deal as above. Not a huge fan, especially of the recommendation/commission/EIS-type counterplans. I especially don’t like the very shady versions of these counterplans. Aff-specific solvency arguments again mitigate my problem.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Agent: If they specified their agent, more power to you, as long as you have a plan-contextual reason the plan is better done by another agent. If you use ASPEC, no.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Plan Inclusive Counterplan: If you have a solvency advocate for it, a good PIC will make me very happy. Its better if you compete off of a fundamental component of the affirmative, but you should definitely punish poorly written plan texts. An exception is the Word PIC: I love these against critical affs that like to defend discouse. They’re strategic there, but in most other scenarios they are hard to win.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">I think Calum Matheson (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Matheson%2C+Calum) best stated how I feel about this: //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">“Uniqueness cannot determine the direction of a link. This is not an opinion, just a statement of fact. Some outcome is more or less likely to happen in the future, but because it’s a prediction, the probability is almost never 100%. The link is a net assessment of how the plan changes this—it’s a yes/no, up/down thing. So if one team wins the direction of the link, they should win the argument (although winning the sign of the change doesn’t mean that its magnitude is necessarily enough to result in a particular outcome).” //
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13pt;">8. Uniqueness and link: **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">You don't have to be overly nice, it won't offend me if you're slightly rude (although it might be reflected in speaker points.) I'd prefer everyone is nice to each other in debates, but jesting and cajoling is OK in good humor. Humor is always good, but don't cross the line. I'd also prefer you getting your arguments out in a serious manner than listening to corny and terrible humor, so if you're not funny, don't try to be.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13pt;">9. In-round conduct: **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Limited profanity is not preferable but not unforgivable. Anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or discriminatory in any other way will make me very mad.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">This varies for me. While reasonability does make a lot of sense to me, I default to offense/defense until otherwise told. I probably have some preconceived notions about your arguments that you could figure out by reading this philosophy, but I try to keep those out of my decisions. You also must be reasonable for me to consider you so, and it would be nice if you actually gave me a warrant as to why you are reasonable.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13pt;">10. Offense/defense vs reasonability: **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Qualifications: Important if you make them important. If I read two pieces of evidence after the round and I have trouble matching the quality of the evidence against equally-well-argued portions of the debate, the qualifications of the author become much more important. If you say that I should reject evidence because its author is unqualified, I might do it if the author is, in fact, unqualified and you can tell me why I should.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13pt;">11. Random extra things: **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Paperless: Prep time ends when you stop prepping. Saving speeches to a flash drive does not count towards prep time, but if you take too long to flash, it will make me angry. Don’t steal prep. Theft will not go unpunished, and punishment will probably include loss of speaker points and forfeiture of some amount of remaining prep time.