Timalsina,+Ishan

Rancho Bernardo '15 UC San Diego '19 I debated for Rancho Bernardo, and competed on the national circuit primarily during my senior year. Feel free to contact me at ishan.timalsina@gmail.com if you have any questions.

Its really simple: I'll first decide on a framework for the round, then evaluate who has the best offense back to that framework. This will be how my RFDs and it should be how you structure your crystallization.
 * How I Evaluate Rounds**

In general, I mostly ran util/theory as a debater (and these are rounds I'm most comfortable evaluating), but that doesn't mean that you need to. I don't like to intervene, so whatever my predispositions about debate may be, you should debate whatever style you're comfortable with. That being said, I do have predispositions and default stances, but I'll evaluate the round how you tell me to given well warranted arguments.
 * General**

If you weigh arguments, you'll find it much easier to win. It might help make your speech more clear for me to flow if you structure it with overviews to beak the round down, especially when there are a lot of layers on the flow.

I'll vote on the arguments that occur in the round, but here are how the arguments that I personally find compelling/how I debated Defaults: Im sympathetic to, but won't intervene for an RVI (this means I default no RVI, but Im probably more sympathetic to the RVI if you are winning theory than most judges). I default drop the argument.
 * Theory**
 * RVIs are fine on drop the debater
 * Im comfortable with RVIs on T if the RVI is well warranted
 * In round abuse>out of round/potential abuse
 * Fairness>education
 * Running theory strategically is fine

Im not that well read on K lit, and didn't really run Ks. This doesn't mean I'm not willing to vote on Ks, but just that you need to do a really good job explaining and warranting your arguments. Whats really key for me is your ROB and how the alternative under that ROB actually solves. This means that if you have a ROB that relies on implementation to solve the problems you talk about, solvency does matter. I default to evaluating theory above Ks.
 * Ks**

I'm fine with evaluating framework debates, but if you're planning on running dense philosophy, you really need to explain your arguments really well. Anything that's hard to understand at normal speeds is //still// hard to understand when you're spreading. //Note://I'm not a fan of completely new interpretations in later speeches (especially the 2AR) of your dense philosophy that was read in the AC. Doing this will probably lower your speaks, so you need to explain it properly the first time around.
 * Phil**


 * Misc**
 * Arguments have a claim, warrant, and impact. Anything else is a blip, which I probably won't vote on and may lower your speaks
 * Something fishy's up when you've been putting all your cards on one doc for 10 minutes now. Please don't steal prep. I'll try to be fair about this, but if it gets out of hand, it'll affect your speaks.
 * Caveats on speed: you need to slow down for tags, interps, plan/cp texts, and anything else you want me to flow word for word. Please pause when you switch between layers of the flow. I'll call clear as many times as necessary.
 * I have a low threshold on extensions, but you need to impact anything you want me to vote on.
 * CX is binding
 * You have to be able to provide your opponent with a paper or flashed copy of everything you read.
 * Don't be a dick
 * Knowledge of the topic is a plus. This means that comparative weighing between the methodologies of empirics/intricacies of analytics is a plus. This shows that you know the topic well and will improve your speaks and will help me decide in a detailed line-by-line debate.
 * How I decide speaks:
 * Strategy, technical efficiency, civility, and your ability to integrate your arguments into a big picture analysis are all really important. I'll also consider flashing/evidence practices if necessary. Keeping me entertained is a big plus.

Make sure you have fun while you're at it.