I would say I mostly evaluate rounds based on the stock issues, but I also want to hear reasonable, well-explained arguments. I would rather hear clear, thorough explanations of your argument than a large amount of evidence. Obviously, don't make claims without backing them up with evidence and reasoning, but I can be convinced on a point with just a few cards as long as the reasoning is sound. I also have just a couple of years of experience with CX, so I don't advise running a Kritik unless you can properly communicate it to me as your judge.

I also value clear delivery, so I don't advise excessively rapid delivery. Again, I care more about the reasoning, so no need to throw in a large amount of arguments and evidence (and no need to speed through it).

Saanvi Seth

She/Her/Hers

Lake Travis Highschool 19-23 | University of Texas at Austin 23 - 27

Please put me on the email chain: ltpolicyks@gmail.com

Key Points:

- Do what you do best.

- I am Tab and default to policy making if not given an alternate framework.

- I evaluate the round through offense/defense metrics and am tech over truth.

- I competed mainly on the TFA circuit to keep up with most arguments other than high theory Ks with obscure literature. If you want to run this type of position, explain the thesis of the K and how it interacts with the topic at hand.

- Speed is fine, but if you are unclear and want me to catch all arguments analytics should be sent.

- Just show me the easiest way to the ballot & of course keep the debate organized

- Don't be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, derogatory, sexist etc.