Sidhu,+Imaan

Imaan Sidhu, Senior at College Prep, 4 years of policy debate, Double 2s email chain: isidhu@college-prep.org If you want to see what I've run on this topic: https://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/College+Prep/Bittner-Sidhu+Neg (I have no idea how to use a comma, so I just throw them in when it feels right)

= __Short__: = Run whatever you want, if it's not offensive I'll listen to it. I enjoy a well explained K debate as much as I like a deep policy debate. Personally my strategies have varied from 1 off Ks to 8 off all DAs and CPs, so I don't really care about what I'm hearing, just explain it well and tell me how to vote. I'm going to vote off the flow and the arguments I have written so there will be as little intervention as possible. Speed is fine as long as it doesn't come at the expense of clarity. I will yell "Clear" if I can't hear your words and will keep doing so when I can't understand you (I might also yell "louder"). Tech over Truth. I need good evidence extension with warrants. Don't just say "extend the links" and move on. Don't be a jerk, have fun.

= __Long__: =

 **Overall** -. The last rebuttals should write my RFD for me, tell me what I'm voting for and why. This doesn't mean I won't call for evidence and spend time on my decision, but the team that has better explained why they win will most likely be the team that wins. Time your own speeches and don't steal prep. Don't ask me for paper or pens. I don't make a big deal about speaks unless you're rude. I pay close attention in CX. On the aff, whether it's a plan aff or K aff, know what you're talking about and have a clear mechanism that you stand by. On the neg, don’t change your arguments for me and be strategic. All debaters should respect the other people in the room. There's a clear distinction between good clash and toxic comments. Don't insult your opponents, don't made rude comments, don't speak over them aggressively. Do not try to escalate the debate into a yelling match. I like debate, don’t make me not like it.

 **DA** - Neg has to explain the link and internal link well. Impact calc is important on both sides. Aff has a good chance of outweighing the impact if they win a high risk of case, and I love a good straight turn (especially if it's sneaky). Saying the words "turns case" in the your speech means nothing to me without an explanation. Most people just throw those words in and expect me to instantly vote neg if the aff doesn't answer it. I need a clear picture on how the DA controls the direction of the aff impacts. I don’t run a lot of DAs so words like Court Packing don’t mean much to me without an explanation.

 **CP** - Run whatever cheaty counterplan you want, just be ready to defend the model of debate you justify. Solvency advocates are a good way to legitimize your counterplan in my eyes. Explain how you solve the aff advantages/ impacts and obviously have a net benefit. Perm do the aff is not an argument. I don’t lean a certain way on 50 states or other topic CPs this year, just do what you do.

 **K** - I run a lot of Ks in my debates, but nothing extremely high theory. I mostly run afro-pessimism and psychoanalysis, but that's as deep as my knowledge goes on specific Ks. If you're running something super high theory, I want more than buzzwords thrown around. I need a specific explanation of the link, the alt, and how the alt resolves the impacts. Framework is an important part on both sides. Your self-serving role of the ballots won’t be very convincing, but if it’s your thing don’t let me stop you. Same goes for root cause debates, I find them shallow but as with most things in debate, if they’re well executed then they’re probably more legitimate. PIKs are usually cheaty and many people expect judges to vote on them because they drop a line in the 2NC about being able to solve the aff impacts. If you're a PIK you can own up to it early and give a better explanation of how you solve the aff, this will also help you on the theory debate because you didn't produce a late-breaking debate.

 **T**- I personally don't like T debates. I usually run it in my rounds just to waste time, but I will totally vote on it. I need a good explanation of why your interpretation leads to a better model of debate. I need good impact work, this is vital for my ballot, explain how the aff leads to tangible impacts felt around the debate community.

 **Framework vs a K Aff** – I have a run a K aff my whole senior year but to be honest, I lean a little neg on framework. I think the aff has to prove they produce a good model of debate, whether that's through fairness, education, predictability, or another form of measurement. The aff should also explain what solvency they lose by being forced to engage with the state. The aff should at least be in the direction of the topic. The neg still has to prove the aff is unfair and a good case debate and TVA are essential. People don’t get into the internal link and impact debate enough in the F/W rounds I’ve been in. I don’t care whether it’s deliberation, fairness, or participation (lol), they have to mean something. I don’t think procedural fairness is always an intrinsic good, even if debate is a game. But that doesn’t mean that procedural fairness doesn’t matter.

In the end it’s pretty simple. If the aff solves an impact and the neg model excludes them (fully or to whatever threshold is explained) I’ll vote aff. If the neg proves that their model of debate is better and can resolve or outweigh the aff, I vote neg.

 **Theory** - Most of what I said on T applies here, including that I find these boring. However, if there is a super abusive argument on either side, I will vote if a tangible impact is highlighted by the other team. Have an interpretation and make sure to explain why the violation is grounds to reject the team. Don’t be afraid to go for theory in front of me, just do a good job.