Gupta,+Nitin

I debated for 3 years in Arizona for Corona Del Sol High School. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania but do not debate here, instead, I judge local tournaments and help "coach" different teams in the area.

Naturally, I will have predispositions to certain arguments, but they will be instantly overridden by a spoken blurb on the subject.


 * Non-Argument Summary:**

Good logic is better than cards Prep ends when the flash drive LEAVES the computer There's a fine line between aggressiveness and being a douche Speaker points are awarded for but not limited to the following criterion (Smart arguments, clash, research, wittiness, clarity, puns) You really should flow. Tag team Cross-ex is fine (Don't steal your partners cross-ex though, its apparent) 8 minutes pre-round prep once the plan text has been disclosed (Yes you should disclose, unless you're breaking an Aff)


 * DA's:**

Politics is about evidence specificity, your Political Capital cards should say "Political Capital" Disad turns case arguments are not used enough, but should be. 1NC's should have all parts of the argument


 * CP's**

The Aff should usually have to defend the entirety of the 1AC. That being said, I can be convinced that PIC'ing out of .01% of the Aff can be abusive. I have a predispostion process/consult/timeframe counterplans are not theoretically "fair", but I can be convinced otherwise. Best way to convince me that you should be allowed your counterplan is if you have a specific solvency advocate. Word PICS aren't the greatest arguments but can be strategic against certain types of affs.


 * T**

I wasn't ever a big T debater, but my partner was, so I have come to appreciate how T is debated well. That being said, I don't like hearing a "limits bad" block being spread to me, rather I want line by line analysis specific to the round/1AC. I default to competing interpretations, like most people, but can be convinced for reasonability. Remember, reasonability is not being reasonably topical, it is whether or not your interpretation provides a reasonable amount of ground/limits. Potential abuse probably isn't the best voter, so try to sculpt an "in round abuse" story.


 * K's**

My partner and I ran K's quite frequently, and went for K's quite often as well. I understand how to evaluate most K debates conceptually, but that doesn't mean I know exactly what your author is saying, so explain that to me. AFF: Make sure you have a clear and definite Framework/Role of the Ballot coming out of the 2AC, I need to know how to evaluate the different impacts in the round. I will vote on stupid K tricks like floating PIK's if they are dropped, so the Aff should remember to answer them. Like CP's, I think a conditional K in round is usually fine.


 * Non "Traditional" Debate**

I have hit 2-3 "project"/performance teams in my life, none of them were particularly astounding. That being said, If you want to run this strategy, feel free, I will judge the round to the best of my ability, but I don't guarantee experience with the arguments.

Feel free to ask me anything before the round. Debate really comes down to the comparison of impacts, so do that for me so I don't have to.

Shalom,

Nitin Gupta