Howdy

My name is Aakash.

If you do these three things I will probably vote for you

1) Explain your argument well

2) Weigh it clearly against the other arguments that pertinent in the round

3) Defend your argument well and win it relatively clearly

If you do these three things I will not vote for you

1) Read theory

2) Spread

3) Be racist/homophobic/ honestly anything that ends in an ic if you do it I probably won't vote for you

I will give you +0.25 speaker points if you tell me a fun fact about uganda. (this can be anything from a fact about its terrain to a fact about its political landscape)

Do whatever you're comfortable with.

About Me:

I'm Manank. Lynbrook '24. Some University '28. Did LD for 4 years, trad for 1, circuit for 3 but comfortable evaluating any type of debate except CX.

Email chain: manank.awesome@gmail.com

I do have biases and that's basically don't read phil and tricks and disclosure theory and don't assume I understand kritiks.

Trad LD/PF

I've got experience, tech > truth. do your thing, don't spread there's a reason why pf is different than policy and trad ld is different than circuit ld. ngl most of these rounds come down to who does better weighing so weigh!!!

Progressive/Circuit LD

Quick pref sheet:

Theory/T - 1

LARP/Policy - 2

Wacky/Different but understandable arguments: (friv theory, wipeout, soft left affs) - 2

Kritiks - 3

Phil - 5

Tricks (like eval, tt, that stuff) - Strike

General Debate Thoughts: Genuinely don't know why 2nr needs to collapse cuz its job is to make the 2ar impossible. However, I believe that collapsing can be strategic so you do you. Be nice. Don't be offensive. I'm not the best flower but if you're clear and not incredibly fast you'll be fine. Clipping is an L only if your opponent stakes the round on it and there is evidence. Weigh + good evidence comparison is a must. Have fun!

LARP/Policy: I can evaluate larp just fine. CP competition needs to be explained very well. Comparative weighing is highly appreciated. There is a thing called 0% risk, soft left affs and Ks should use this more vs extinction

Theory/T: What's friv theory? if theory is so bad answer it and use reasonability. Reasonability is legit underused. Most of my theory knowledge comes from Michael Harris

Default to DTD, CI, no RVI's, except dta on cp theory except condo.

I'm cool with RVI's (i still don't understand why people hate rvi's so much)

Went for this a ton in every year so pretty comfortable

Do standard weighing and voter weighing

Probably not gonna vote on disclosure/wiki theory

Kritiks/K Affs: Lol not great for these but if you can explain why extinction doesn't o/w and hijack the aff, then should be fine. I need a ton of explanation though because most K's just sound like a bunch of jargon ngl. Probably bad for identity K's, probably fine for cap, security, ir k's. I'm pretty bad for K affs because I believe there is a resolution for a reason. If you're able to answer T-FW well, then go for it but I am persuaded by T-fw a lot.

Phil: Most phil debates tend to just be blippy analytics, don't do that if you want to read phil in front of me. I'm still probably bad for substantive phil debates.

Tricks: No pls. Blippy args with terrible warrants are bad.

How to get good speaks:

make science puns

make debate ez to eval pls

be funny! I primarily did debate just to have fun and learned a ton along the way.

be smart + strategic

good impact calc + evidence comparison

No docbotted 2nr/2ar pls

From Soohyuk Yoon's paradigm: Give 2nr or 2ar off paper = +1 speak boost, Handshake after round = +0.3

would appreciate if you called me Rohan

Background: Have debated PF (and only PF) for multiple years on national circuit. In other words, I know PF well, and also judge based on PF conventions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PF: 

Spreading: No

Kritiks: No

Theory: No

I really do not like theory (partially because of PTSD of losing to paraphrase theory) but also because I think it fundamentally goes against what PF is about. If you are going to read theory because your opponents are genuinely racist/homophobic and/or actually doing something that hurts debate, then I will keep an open mind. If you say you should win because paraphrasing will lead to the end of civilized discussion or because your opponents didn't respond in the exact 5 step process that is required, I really don't want to hear it.

Frontlining in Second Rebuttal: Yes

Summary to Final Focus Cohesion: Yes

Anything in final should be closely related to what was said in summary. If you bring up a new argument in summary or final, I will not consider it. Alternatively, if you expand on weighing you started in summary, that is alright. (FYI: I will generally give more leeway to first final)

Weighing: Required.

Extensions: Claim & Warrant (& impact if it is offense)

I need to know what your turn/defense/contention claims and the logical warranting/card behind it. If it is a contention, the impact should be extended as well for weighing purposes. 

I do not need you to extend specific evidence unless that is what you are arguing about. Even then, if you are referring to a piece of evidence I actually prefer you saying "the Baltic Sea card" instead of "Jefferson15", because it is likely i will not remember what Jefferson15 so crucially said (unless you repeat it enough). Rest assured however: If I do not know what card you were talking about at the end of the round then I will ask for it. 

Speaker Points: 25-30

If you get lower than a 25, you messed up big time

Email Chain: Don't add me.

If I need evidence, I will let you know at the end of the round. If there is an issue with evidence credibility/misuse, I will read the card myself. Tell me to call the card.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any event that isn't PF: I'm sorry. This is going to be a tough round. Debate as if it is a lay round.

Use the stuff you learned from the camp

Dont use K's and Theory cuz like nah

I've debated LD for a couple of years but mainly focus on extemp. I'm a flow judge so I like signposting and being organized with the flow. If I can't follow your flow, I'll stop flowing. Please do not go far overtime and I'll stop flowing after 5 seconds of grace period.

Please do not run theory, Ks, or topicality. Please do not spread.

I will vote on framework so make sure your impacts connect back to your framework. Please also extend your case and impact weigh heavily. Try your best not to drop cases, but I won't vote on drops if your opponent don't call it out. Lastly, be kind and respectful.