I like flushed out frameworks but don't be abusive with fiat. If you run any interesting models then warrant why they are reasonable.

Warranting is important, especially in rebuttal speeches

Weigh as much as possible

don't make the debate boring, I know its harder with certain topics but please try to be entertaining and have fun

follow wsd norms, if you're confused please ask

background:

• I have 4 years of experience in wsd so I'm familiar with the format and arguments

general info:

• I will be evaluating the round based upon which world is comparatively better
• neither side has to solve for every issue, but you need to tell me why your world is better
• make sure you are clear on the characterization of your world (i.e. what does your world look like, what policies are implemented, how does this affect the common individual, etc.). This will make it easier for me to evaluate why your side is winning
• Please stray away from definition debates- make sure your framework is not abusive and unrealistic. Remember, each side has limited political and economic capital to expend in the round, so don't make models that will not occur.
• be abundantly clear about the link chains in your arguments. You cannot jump from a claim to an impact without warrants and links that connect both. It makes your argument stronger and gives me a reason to buy into your arguments.
• MAKE SURE TO WEIGH-- I cannot stress this enough because I've seen too many debates where speakers will tell me their argument but not why it's important. You need to do more than just say the impacts of your argument. You need to tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents (timeframe, magnitude, briteline, prerequisite, etc.) in order for me to vote for you.
• wsd is a global debate, so make sure to have examples across the world to back up your argumentation. Don't cherry-pick from one country or become us-centric. Think about how policies affect the global citizen
• wsd is partly argumentative and partly performative. That being said, it's important that you deliver your arguments in a persuasive way. Don't go rambling on for 8 minutes straight and don't spread. Talk at a conversational rate and be respectful
• debate should be fun, so have fun. Go for out-of-the-box args. let your personality shine through your speech/delivery: If you're funny or sarcastic, be funny or sarcastic. But most importantly, USE PUNS.
• I have no preference on how you organize your speech, just make sure you provide a roadmap so it's clear what you'll be covering
• ask pois, that's your way to directly engage with your opponents. Don't spam pois though, ask them after every 20 secs in a speech. And make sure to take 2 pois in your speech.
• Be strategic with the arguments that you focus on as the debate progresses. Go for the ones that will win you the round. The clashes that you collapse on will be the metrics I use to evaluate the round.

If you have any questions or want additional feedback, feel free to reach out to me through my email: sanjayshori03@gmail.com

Overall Notes- I don't really like speed or spreading. If you choose to spread then you will need to make your taglines clear. If I cannot understand your tags then I cannot flow the argument. Also do not expect me to be able to understand all the analysis from your arguments if you do not slow down for it.

LD- I tend to consider myself to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to LD. I enjoy a solid framework debate. I tend to vote for the debater that impacts out their arguments the best. I tend to judge based off the quality of arguments not the quantity of arguments. I think that one good argument can win the round for either side. I am not as comfortable with policy arguments in LD, but I was a CXer, so if you are in a panel situation I won't automatically vote you down for running them.

CX- I am a policymaker judge. I tend to judge based from a util mindset unless you give me another framework to work through. I really like to hear debate that focuses on the balance between terminal and real-world impacts. I tend to like cohesive negative strategies that work together. Personally I am okay with conditionality, but if you want to get into the theory debate and impact it out in the round go for it. I am fine with any sort of theory debate. On T I default to reasonability. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.