For really any style of debate I am willing to listen to any argument as long as it makes sense. For CX, persuade me but make your case make sense, for the most part I will not do the work for you (this applies to both aff and neg) however if I feel like an argument is so ridiculous that I think it should not be considered then I won't but this has not really happened.

If you are going to run a K make sure the aff is actually causing considerable harm, I do not want a K for a Ks sake. Try not to have excessive offs, quality over quantity is always better. Explain your links and impacts thoroughly, don't assume I'm going to immediately understand your arguments just because you read them. Also, you can spread but just make sure it is clear, slow down on tag lines and authors, and if you can, on analytical arguments. If you do not wish to spread you do not have to. As for speaker points, do not worry too hard about it.

I did Policy Debate (CX) for 3 years.

Add me on the chain - samiridrees786@gmail.com

In LD,

I prefer on-topic argumentation. I frown upon attempts to get off topic and make the debate about something else regardless of what it is. I prefer debaters to flow and to actually respond to what the other side has said. I do not care for arguments on extreme, fringe ideology.

In CX,

I do not vote on irrelevant or non-sensical argumentation. I am stock issues-policymaker. Aff. must prove solvency. I will vote on solvency or topicality independent of any other issues. Kritiks are fine, the problem is the ridiculous philosophies argued, not the concept of the Kritik. It must show a workable alternative, be competitive and non-topical. I'm especially appalled but the new system of debaters exchanging all information before the speech so that no one is actually listening. The result of that is no clash. One good argument can beat ten weak arguments.

To both,

I do not mind accelerated speed but there is always a limit. I usually do not flow rebuttals but instead are just listening to determine a winner. It does not mean I have made up my mind. Any personal attacks OF ANY KIND, will result in the absolute minimum of speaker points and severely worsens your chance of winning. Also hurting speaker points, but not the winner, would be inappropriate attire. Students (and coaches) should dress in a professional manner.

I have 4 years of experience in debate + a 2 year judging experience. I do prefer actual policy debate over K debate, but that does not mean I won't value the K or any of form of arguments, as long as it is well explained and relevant to the round.

I am basically open to anything.

Speed is fine. I value all forms of arguments but I do like clash, especially in terms of framework, impact calc and solvency.

In addition, I will not assume anything for a specific team in terms of argumentation. If it is not said in round, I will not consider it.

Northwestern ‘24 | Elkins '20

general-

speed is fine but slow down on tags/analytics

add me to the chain- anikshah04@gmail.com - please remember to hit reply all

flashing doesn’t count as prep

open cx & prompting are fine

be nice

ask any questions before the round begins

you keep track of time and prep

policy-

you do you. I was a 1a/2n for 3 years. I was mainly a k debater (cap, set col, security, agamben) but enjoy policy debates as well. If you read a k make sure you clearly articulate the thesis and don’t assume that I’m familiar with your author/lit base. Hella generic links get you nowhere unless they're backed by pulling lines from the 1ac, things the aff has said in cx, or some sort of other actual contextualization to the round. I'm okay with reject alts but you need to explain why rejection is the best option, not just that we should reject the aff cuz its bad - that doesn't show me why we aren't foregoing some other better option. You need to be able to explain the world of the alt without just rereading the warrants from your evidence. K affs are fine but my partner and I primarily read middle of the road stuff so I might not be familiar with all of your strategies. On the root cause debate, finding a card that says "capitalism is the root cause of violence" doesnt win you the root cause or the debate- you need to explain the link chain from capitalism to the violence that manifests in the 1ac and how you resolve it otherwise you haven't done anything. If you're reading the K even though you have no idea how to debate it because you think your opponents will drop it you aren't getting yourself anywhere. Don't neglect the case debate - it can provide one of the easiest paths to the ballot.

bottom line - I'd rather watch you read a basic strategy that's well-prepped and understood by you than some heavy k strat you pulled out of your team's dropbox that you have absolutely no understanding of. By all means though if you've got a sick strat that you can articulate I'd love to hear it.

LD & PF-

you do you. I don’t have experience in these events but I’ll do my best to evaluate the debate. CPs/Ks/theory args are cool unless you're debating novices, in which case keep it chill. I think there are quite a few differences between policy theory and ld/pf theory so maybe flesh out those arguments much more if you’re reading them as once again my theory experience is pretty limited.

I would like to be on the email chain if there is one carleigh.l.west@gmail.com

I have my masters in communication studies and bachelor’s in political science from West Virginia University. While at WVU, I competed for their policy team for about two years, and I have a year of competing in parliamentary and IPDA debate while at Shepherd University. I am currently a research and evaluation coordinator for a non-profit

I will listen to just about any argument but I enjoy debates with a clear framework to weigh the round. I think debate is an educational activity and creates a lot of great opportunities for learning, so my openness to many arguments really stems from wanting to sus out the ideas that debaters want to bring to the table. Most importantly, though, have fun! Get into it! I appreciate humor in a round as well!

General (And also some framework stuff):

• I love educational impacts, we are doing an educational activity, so we see grounded impacts when we can impact education. That doesn't mean I won't vote on non-educational impacts, just that I have a fondness for education.
• Have fun with this! You're likely up early on a Saturday to be here! Have fun!

AFF/Case: Please be clear about your impacts and your framing. As I had mentioned, I will vote on just about anything, but being clear about where your impacts lie and how I should be viewing the round is really important and will make it easier for me to vote for you. Also love a good case turn or impact turn.

T: I mean, I’ll vote on it, I just might be sad. If you’re going to read T, please just make it clear and uphold your standards. Please be clear about where the violation is and why the limits are necessary.

Theory: like T. My threshold for dropping the debater is going to be pretty high.

CP: Pretty much weighing like how I would weigh the plan.

K: I love a good K. A kritik done well can really lead to great discussions in round. I do think you need to have a good link story to the AFF and a clear alternative. I’ll vote on generic Ks since I think generic Ks help for getting folks into critical literature if it’s done well and is weighed well against the aff. I may know the literature, I may not. Regardless, you should be able to give a good, simple explanation of your K.

Perms: Whether it is a CP or a K if you are going for the perm, please explain how it functions. What does doing both look like? Sequencing can be super important!

DA: DAs are cool with me. Give me a good story of how the DA happens, do your impact calc and I’ll vote on it