Deo,+Mahnvee

Mahnvee Deo Debated at Alpharetta High School for 4 Years

Updated February 24th, 2014

Favorite Judges: Adam Smiley, Calum M. and Brian Rubaie.

I've judged enough debates where it seemed liked the debaters did not want to be there, they were disrespectful towards me or their opponents and they were disrespectful towards the activity. I did not hesitate to lower their speaker points and I will not hesitate to lower the speaker points of anyone else who does acts like that and demonstrates that they do not want to be their. On the other hand, if debaters are persuasive, sincere, and demonstrate that they enjoy the debate, I will reward them. Also awesome strategy, speaking style, how you conduct yourself, and your interactions with your partner and your opponents are all factored into speaker points.
 * General Thoughts **

**Speed:** If you can read comprehensibly at a lightning pace, more power to you. All I request is a brief pause after reading your tagline so I know where the citation begins. This will help you in later speeches when you extend evidence.


 * Evidence: **It needs to be debated out, no matter how good the warrants are, they don't matter unless they are properly articulated. The same goes for author credentials, there needs to be a reason I should prefer your author. If a round comes down to evidence then I will call it up, reluctantly however; I will read the not highlitghed/underlined/bolded part of the evidence for context, and I will factor what the debaters read and what the card actually says into my decision.


 * Topicality: ** It's persuasive and usually a voter. I tend to default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be persuasive. Debaters should focus on how the affirmative shapes the topic and evidence. Case lists are pretty compelling. T is probably not genocidal or racist.


 * Counter Plans: **Logical opportunity cost does get taken too which means that there is a line between what is good and what's not legit. I can be persuaded in either direction. The idea that there is "always a risk of the CP linking less than the plan" is not persuasive.


 * Framework: **I think its not hard to win that the affirmative has to defend a plan and the plan has to exist. But its harder to force the affirmative to have to defend the enactment of the plan and that its consequences matter. Generally I feel like debaters don't engage their framework with the other teams framework, which is a huge underutilization of a game winning tool.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">__Link__ - Link of omission is not a good link to start with, especially with me, but if you can start out with that and then get them to create links in speeches or cross then you have a winner. The link needs to be contextualized and make sense. Specific links are appreciated. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">__Alternative__ - One thing that baffles me is how Kritiks win debates with such pathetically terrible alternatives, maybe its because the affirmative teams never really talks about the alternative after their 2ac blocks. Please don't do that, its lazy debating. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">__Impacts__ - VTL Probably doesn't outweigh extinction. But epistemology args, self fulfilling args, and r/c args combined with VTL is very persuasive <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">The deleuzian ontology of heideggarian ethic infernalism kritik is not persuasive. __Please do not runt this in front of me.__
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Kritik: **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; line-height: 1.5;">I don't like Kritiks. I will vote for them, if they are run well, but that usually isn't the case. If you decide to runa Kritik in front of me, you should know that I'm also not familiar with the literature or jargon so I need debaters to explain the Kritik to me in rebuttals, If you can't explain the K without using words that end in "ology" or "ism", then you really shouldn't be running a K at all.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> I do feel that my post-round advice is less useful and educational in K rounds in comparison to other rounds.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">**Kritikal Affirmatives:** Performances are interesting, not really sure why they're topical. I really like affirmatives that defend enactment of the plan with some kritikal advantages.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I'm more likely to hold the 1AR to a higher standard if they're warranted and explained in the block rather than if they are explained in the 2NR <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">i think rollback arguments are nonsense, and i feel dirty voting on them.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Disadvantages: **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Disad Turns case arguments are more persuasive with explanations than with a bunch of cards.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">**Politics:** this disad can either be terrible or mediocre, but also makes up 70% of my 2NRs. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Here's some things i feel about politics disads -- <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">A. PC is probably not key to things also apply it specifically to the DA if you go for it// reading uniqueness overwhelms the link cards are also helpful. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">B. Theory - politics DAs are probably good for debate, but probably not <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">intrinsic

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">**Theory:** I may be the only person in the world, but i really enjoy judging CLEAN theory debates, I really enjoy conditionality debates and CP competition debates. Clean line by line debating and not using buzzwords makes theory debates awesome to judge please do it

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Theoretical Predispositions <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Condo - one's fine - any more probably bad <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Dispo - GOOOOOD <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Object fiat (advantage or plan) - Bad <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Negative fiat (i.e. usfg should not do "X" ) - Bad <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">