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

Intro: Hey there, I'm Sanjay. I debated for 4 years at Southlake Carroll in WSD and have 1.5 years of experience as a judge/coach. I've been speakers 1-4 throughout my time in WSD, so I am more than familiar with the ins-and-outs of the format and each speech.

Judging philosophy (personal take): I purely evaluate the material that is presented to me in the round, nothing more, nothing less. That being said, winning a round entirely depends on how you build and present your argument. While both sides may be inherently true, the side that uses their arguments to their best ability will ultimately win. This will depend on a number of factors, primarily how you justify its importance, how you weaponize it against the opposing side, how well you defend it from opposing arguments, how you characterize its terminal impacts, and MOST IMPORTANTLY..... how you weigh the arguments. Weighing is, in my opinion, the most powerful tool you have in a round that can very clearly tell me why I should vote for you. Prop/opp 3's, this is your time to shine.

If you want to look at other RFDs that I agree with, I suggest taking a close look at fellow Diet Coke and McDonald's enthusiast Neha Boyapati.

Case building/structure: Make sure your framework and substantives are clearly organized in order and thought. I have a soft spot for well-constructed cases so plz plz make sure they flow properly. Bonus points for in-case spikes and fleshed-out impact calc.

Speeches: Worlds is a mix of performative and argumentative speeches. Personally, I don't put much emphasis on the performative aspect, but I do like seeing your personality in speeches- be funny or sarcastic, dramatic or calm (your preference, but just keep it moderated). Same as case building, I like structured speeches since it makes it easier for me to listen, evaluate, and weigh your arguments. Make sure to signpost whenever you get to certain segments of your speech :)

Clash/Weighing: This is the bulk of where my decision will be made. I am a flow judge, so I care about the development and clash of arguments more than anything in the round. It is simply not enough to say "our argument is better" or "our argument is true-r." Unless you provide me with comparative analysis as to why your argument is better, I will not buy it on face-value. So, please please please make sure to weigh and provide me with some comparison of the prop/opp world: scale, timeframe, magnitude, briteline, prereq, solvency.

*Highest ground analysis is my all time favorite, so make sure to use it*

Other general stuff: Don't make the debate about the models- it becomes very messy and hard to evaluate. It's okay to talk at a fast pace if you have a lot of content, but don't spread. Utilize POIs (20s break between each). Be consistent with your strategy and narrative down the bench.

Feel free to reach out to me at sanjayshori03@gmail.com if you have any questions/concerns/anything. Have a nice day!

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.