Hey Guys, I'm Ashu Panda I've been involved in debate for over 3 years, I was heavily involved in policy b8ut have competed in almost every type of debate. Spreading is fine as long as the taglines are loud and clear. I am heavy on technicality over truth, I believe that it is the competitors job to explain, contextualize as well as explain to me true impacts and weighing of the round. I love analytics so please read them slowly and If i can't understand them, I will not be able to flow it. At the end of the round, each side should pretty much write my ballot for me at the end and outline why your "plan" is better. (ANy references to demon slayer within round is .5 speaker points).

Email Chain: panda.ashutosh44@gmail.com

Topicality: I love topicalities, and run as many as you would like. I will always listen to why the negation should not be allowed to run that many topicality arguments but that is up to the affirmation. Always indicate standards and make it clear, if not clear- then I will not flow or weight that argument in the round. Always compare Topicality arguments and weigh them for me instead of having me do any work.

CPs: CPs are very interesting to me and is an easy voter for me if neg is able to explain the Net Benefit as well as the Mutual Exclusivity. Perms are good from aff, but need to be clear on why they are good perms or why they go for that perm. Simply claiming 8 different perms with no explanation will not be weighed. If the neg can't defend the perm or perms, then aff wins.

DAs:DA and CP paired together is amazing, love specific links especially if it connects to Aff's case. If the Aff is able to provide a no link or non unique argument, then aff wins. A Da needs clear impact as well as an impact chain, these make it easier to weigh the DA. Aff's case can also outweigh DA overall.

Ks: Framework is very important, without a fw i cannot make a decision as I don't know whether I am voting for good policy or whatever the neg may be advocating for. Prioritize Framework as well as make it clear in the contextualization as well as emphasize why the K is important. Alternative needs to be present and it can be contested by Aff, both sides need to be very clear on why the K is essential or material policy is.

FW:Both sides need to give a framework. without framework from one side means I default to the Framework that is given to me. Explain to me why it is essential for the round to be evaluated in that manner in comparison to bad and good policy changes- compete frameworks and explain why I should prefer one to another.

Condo/Theory: Run whatever you would like in this, I am used to theory as well as condo, give clear standards and be able to outline why that theory is essential!]

Cross X: I do not flow this unless repeated again in the speeches, Be nice to each other!!! No reason to get heated within CX and attack the case, not the person.

If you have any questions please ask before round.

Hey Guys, I'm Akshath I've been involved in debate for over 3 years, I was heavily involved in policy but have decent experience in other forms of debate. Please include me in the email chain, my email is akshathprasad05@gmail.com. Spreading is fine, just make sure the taglines are loud and clear for me to follow, but it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. Please please please read analytics very very slowly and clearly so I can understand, if you don't I simply will not be able to flow them. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow if any or given. I have a decent knowledge of this year's topic. I am a technicality over truth judge and I definitely play impact calc into my AFF voting decision. Think of me like a blank slate, it is the debaters' job to educate me with all the information.

Like any other judge, I love well-reasoned and thoughtful arguments, quality over quantity any day.

Topicality: I was never too much of a fan of Topicality, if you are a team that goes for T please explain it thoroughly and why I should vote for it, walk me through the T's. Make T arguments interesting, and take it to another level.

CPs: I love a good CP, CPs are game-breakers to me and I will very much vote on a CP if the NEG can easily explain to me the Net Benefit and the Mutual Exclusivity. Perms are great responses from the AFF, Explain to me why the CP can be permed and if the NEG is not able to explain why the PERM fails, AFF wins CP.

DAs: Just like CPs I love a good DA, emphasize the Uniqueness, link, and impact, extend the DAs throughout the neg block, and keep on pushing them. If the AFF is able to provide a solid non-uniq argument or no link, AFF wins DA, but once again the neg needs to find ways to counter this. I prefer specific links to the DA over broad links.

Ks: Ks are very interesting to me because if the K is solid I will easily cast my ballot for the neg, prioritize the framework and the role of debate and focus a lot on the theory aspect. Frame the debate space around the K, but if the K is too sloppy and not properly organized and read I will most likely not vote for the K. I love a great K. Expand on the Alternative and the link, please please, please. I love Roll of Ballot arguments when they are connected to K's.

FW:Arguably the best part of the round, is framing the debate round in the same way as your arguments. emphasize ROB

Condo: not really a fan of