I was a fourth year debater in high school and will be fine with any arguments. I default to policy maker.

Debate how you want to debate I am pretty lenient with any argument. I like when a team directly clashes with another instead of just spreading out cards. (Basically give a little bit of an under view.)

Any speed is welcome but with online judging I would recommend an high-flow open spread.

Stock Issues are important and those include: Topicality, Harms, Inherency, and Solvency.

Kritiks are fine if a team is able to elaborate on them and defend them well.

Counter-Plans are fine as well and I will live it up to the debate teams and conditional arguments on acceptable but I am open to theory arguments.

Theory arguments are fine as well but if you spread through 3 or more of them please include them in the flash to me I will leave the abuse argument to the other team if they want to make that argument.

aditi kiragi

*disclaimer* - if you use that iphone timer that everyone gets upset about, please don't, thx :)

- debated at andover central ('20)

- i haven't judged any rnds in this topic yet so i'm not familiar with all the args and the norms so keep that in mind.

- add me to the email chain: aditikiragiATgmailDOTcom

- feel free to email me after the rnd if you have any questions.

- i was both 2a/2n over the four years so take that as you will.

tldr - i haven't been exposed to this year's topic so explain things clearly, without using buzzwords, and you'll get my ballot.

big picture and random thoughts

- you do you. i'm open to almost any argument as long as you explain it clearly.

- speed is fine as long as you're clear. not a fan of unclear spreading and i'll probably yell clear twice before i put my pen down. go slow on tags and theory bcs i need more pen time.

- collapse down to only 1 argument in the 2nr.

- tech > truth. (some issues are obviously truth > tech so don't be an asshole about it)

- smart analytics are fire and they're underappreciated :)

- fire cxs are great and i think it's binding.

- please don't steal prep, not a fan and i'll dock points if you keep doing it.

- be nice to everyone and you'll get good speaks.

- good jokes will be appreciated :)

topicality

- i ran it quite often on both sides. don't go for it unless you truly believe the aff isn't.

- if you do go for it, spend all 5 mins on it.

- not familiar with t db8s with this topic so write my ballot for me in the 2nr and you'll get my ballot.

disads

- i prefer specific links to the aff but i've also won db8s with generic links so just be smart about it.

- spend time on ! calc even if you're winning this flow coming out of the block.

counterplans

- you most likely need to have an external net ben to win this but if you have an internal one, do the work and explain it clearly and you'll win it.

- perms are merely tests of mutual exclusivity, they don't solve and it's not a third advocacy for me to evaluate.

- explain why the cp clearly solves better than the aff.

- if the aff wins the nb, i'll probably give them more weight on pdb unless you prove so otherwise.

kritiks

- if you run a k and you use a bunch of buzzwords to explain your advocacy, i probably will not be too happy about it.

- i'm a policy db8er so i never ran k affs, which means you're going to have to write out my ballot for me to win this.

- k's on the neg is fine, but don't assumer i am familiar with the args.

- i'm not the best judge for k affs or k v k db8. if you plan on running one, you might have to do a lot more work and if you have any specific questions, just ask me before the rnd.

(please for the love of god, don't run brodrillard)

framework

- the tva has to solve the aff.

- i haven't been exposed to fire fw db8s so keep that in mind before you assume that i just know things.

I hold a tabula rasa paradigm with a default to policymaking first and stock issues second. I will immediately default to any framework run in-round and will choose the best-justified framework when two are competing.

I will vote for the neg if they win a stock issue and can justify why this is a reason for them to win aside from "it's a rule of the game."

I will weigh DAs against advantages in terms of impact calculus. If no impact calc is given, I will do it off the top of my head but it will help you less and may or may not favour you.

You must extend everything if you're not kicking it, meaning that I won't vote on a DA or a T if any parts of it aren't extended, nor will I take an advantage into account when weighing advantages and DAs at the end of the round if it wasn't extended. I won't stress about shadow extending, as long as I can tell what cards you're talking about.

I'll vote on CPs regardless of status, though I will also give the win on them to the aff if they can prove condo/dispo/uncondo bad. I'm not saying I won't vote on slimy CPs like delay by a week or consult the Pope's chinchilla, but it'd be awfully easy for an aff team to convince me that they're hot garbage and not to vote for them.

I will vote on most Kritiks if they make sense and aren't completely unreasonable. If I have absolutely no idea what you're on about or you're reading a 1AC that's relies on performance or something of the sort, I won't vote on it.

Finally, I am not a fan of spreading. If I put my pen down and lay my head on the desk, I can't understand you and am not taking any of your arguments into consideration.

I debated for three years in high school, including at state and districts. I am fine with almost any argument (stock issues, advantage/disadvantage, counterplans, Ks), but you must explain why I should vote on a specific issue. If I do not have a specific reason to vote, then I will be forced to default to policymaker, where I vote for whichever policy (plan, CP, Squo, K) has the best DAs/advantages. I judged a fair amount (4 or 5 tournaments) during the arms sales topic, but do not have much experience with the 2020-2021 topic, so do not expect me to know the relevant case info by default.

Other stuff:

Errs: If the counterplan and the plan solve the case identically and neither have a net benefit, I will prefer the plan over the counterplan unless given some reason to do otherwise.

Err: If the plan and the status quo solve equally (i.e., the aff loses completely on solvency/harms/advantages), I will vote for the status quo.

I am fine with generic links, unless the aff can explain why the link is flawed.

I will generally not buy 'rule of the game' arguments.

I will generally weigh topicality and theory arguments over case, but if the neg runs T in the 2NR, it is highly recommended that they go all in.

I don't care one way or the other on condo.

Ks are fine, but I am more experienced with the generic Ks like cap compared to case-specific Ks.

Spreading is fine.

I will not consider new in the 2 to be problematic by default, but I will consider it to be a voting issue if the aff makes it an important issue.

If you have any specific questions, just ask before the round.