Ramkumar,+Rohit

 I debated LD for four years at Lynbrook High School, during which time I competed all over the national circuit, qualifying to the TOC my senior year.

I need a framework by which to evaluate the round. Kritiks, theory, or a priori arguments are fine insofar as you give me a clear explanation of how they function, In the absence of these, I will default to the value and value criterion or a net benefits standard. If you are running something critical you need to explain its framework and give me reasons to prefer it. If you don’t have an alt, tell my why you don’t need to have an alt. While you can run anything, i'd say your best bet on getting a W from me would be not running critical arguments, but if you have to, that's fine aswell, you just have to be all that more clear. It doesn’t matter what kind of arguments you are running as long as you can explain them to me. That being said, i need something to be clearly warranted in order to vote on it. I understand that the 1ar is tough speech, but you still need to be able to explain each argument you're extending sufficiently.

Speed is fine, but don’t use it as an excuse to make blippy argumentation. If you tend to become unclear when you go fast, go at whatever speed you think you can debate your best. Also, SLOW DOWN if you think you are saying something that matters, I like it when debaters go fast but know when to slow down and emphasis certain issues.If you are extending a blippy argument without spending time to explain it and think it’s a game over issue, chances are I don’t. If you're reading really dense cards you might not want to blaze through them or at least slow down to emphasize the more important parts. Also, slow down during tags and authors.

Theory- I tend to think that fairness IS a voter; in-round abuse trumps potential abuse, and multiple a priori arguments are unfair. This doesn't mean I won’t vote on theory arguments that I don’t particularly like, just that you will have to do more work for me as a judge to vote for them. Other than that, abuse stories should be clear, and your theory should be structured well. If you're going to run theory, please run it well. I really hate muddled theory rounds and don’t like sifting through 30 different arguments on my own to determine the winner. Also, don't just read off the shell, and then let theory fall apart later in the round. You should be able to combine your theory with strategy in order to win the line-by-line of theory, yet at the same time prove that your abuse story is more persuasive. You need to be clear as to how different theory arguments function with one another. Discourse voters have to be well warranted.

I think that weighing arguments is one of the biggest ways to get my ballot. If you're already winning the round, it will close the door. If it is a really close round, it will make my job easy when it comes down to the two competing arguments that matter. No matter what arguments you are running (theory, stock, K’s) do your best to weigh your arguments against one another and show me which arguments should be prioritized. As much as I enjoy the neg dumping on the AC, I’d rather you have a fewer amount of arguments and clearly explain, impact, and then weigh them against different AC arguments.

In terms of speaks, I'll start with a 27 in the beginning of the round and will go up or down based on a couple of things. You'll get good speaks if you are strategic, funny (without being rude), and you combine technical efficiency with persuasiveness in the round. You will get worse speaks if you are rude and/or annoying. So if you do most of the things I've listed above without being rude, chances are you'll get good speaks.

All that said, debate is a game guys. The round is yours not mine, do with it whatever you wish, but have fun while you do it. Good Luck.