I debate LD/Policy for Dougherty Valley on the National Circuit and am debating for in my 4th year now. My pronouns are he/him.

Please add me to the email chain, if one is being used: pranavchandra7@gmail.com

I am ok with any argument as long as links and argument correlations have logic clearly explained. Don't make an unjustified claim and expect me to count it on the flow.

Arguments:

- DAs - Do whatever you want. Any DA is always fun to listen to. Just make sure to buff-up links. Don't make a lot of links with little explanation on each one and expect to have at least one count.

- CPs - Same as DA on do whatever,

- K/K Affs - Ok with most Ks and K Affs. But please have clear OVs of what part of the aff (or debate for a K Aff) you are critiquing. I will most likely not understand your links if I don't understand what the thesis of the K is. And again, explain links thoroughly. I hate general links that have no meaning whatsoever with the aff, but will still evaluate them if they are left unanswered or insufficiently answered. And finally, links of emission are near cheating in my opinion but I will still respect a team's decision to read them if they are strategic.

- Theory - Theory is fun and my only statement on it is, do whatever you want. But, I am not going to vote on frivolous theory, so don't bother trying to prove that your theory violation isn't frivolous.

- Philosophy - Not great in most philosophies, so if you choose to read an AC or NC, please take extra time to ensure I understand your thesis, else it will be difficult for me to evaluate Phil.

- Trix: No trix. Trix are near cheating, if not cheating, in my opinion.

Technicalities:

- Tech >>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth. I don't believe I need to explain this further.

- Impact Calc: One of the MOST important parts of debate in my opinion and also the part that's the most forgotten. Good impact calc means good speaker points.

- Speed: I am fine with spreading but make keep in mind that clarity > speed. If I can't understand what you're saying, just forget the argument: I'm not going to evaluate it. However, I believe lay skills are also an underrepresented part of a debate that have their own value.

- Be nice: I want the debate to be respectful and fun. I understand competition and getting into the heat of the moment, so I will understand and sympathize with passionate speeches with slight aggression but stay within limits and I won't have to dock speaker points.

Be nice, have fun, and learn something new because the point of debate is to learn something new (education and clash > fairness)!