Hey I'm Aarin. I'm a former worlds debater with limited experience in PF and Congress
 WSD
 Some general notes:
 

 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.
 resolve model debates by being comparative and giving me actual argumentation rather than just repeating "tHeIr mOdEl iS aBuSiVe" over and over
 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.
 Don't forget to weight. 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 in order for me to vote for you. Particularly important in later speeches.
 Signpost and give me a roadmap. The easier you make judging this round for me, the better it is 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.
 WSD is partly argumentative and partly performative. That being said, it's important that you deliver your arguments in a persuasive way. Don't spread and talk at a conversational rate and be respectful
 Ask and take POIs! I expect to see 2 taken per speech. But don't spam them or ask rambling ones that just eat up your opponents time.
 I generally prefer voting for practical over principled arguments unless you do a very good job weighing. If you want me to vote on the principle you have to weigh unless there's no other offense to vote off. If I'm given 2 competing arguments and no weighing then I default practical > principal.
 I'm definitely biased towards speeches that do a good job of giving me a big picture comparative as well as winning the line by line, but I'd much rather you debate in the style you're most comfortable with
 Green Bay Packers rhetoric = marginal bump in speaks
 

 I'll explain my RFD after the round and give you individual feedback if you request it, if you want to ask me any questions or want more in depth feedback feel free to email me abindlish@gmail.com
 PF
 

 Watch your speed. Keep it not too much faster than a normal conversational speed
 I'm not at all familiar with progressive argumentation, so probably don't run it
 Signpost and give me a roadmap. The easier you make judging this round for me, the better it is for you.
 Please weigh
 To be safe, consider me as slightly better than a lay judge
 Rhetoric for rebuttal and cases is required
 Keep your own time
 I require you to send all cards + rhetoric for case & rebuttal, abindlish@gmail.com
 

 LD
 - I have very very little experience with LD. As such, it's probably safest to consider me a lay judge. Don't run progressive args, keep speed at conversational levels, and keep speeches simple and cleanly signposted. The easier you make it for me to evaluate the round, the better it is for you.