**TOC Update: List of people I am coaching or have coached in the past who are currently at TOC---Durham SA, King CP, Lynbrook SY, Millburn ST, Scripps Ranch AS, Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM, Dulles NJ, Lake Highland Prep HL.
 I did LD debate at LHS for four years. I qualified for the TOC twice and currently coach the Lexington Debate Team.
 Speech docs are good for numerous reasons, especially evidence ethics, so send them.
 Email: vmaan03@gmail.com
 If you have any questions about my paradigm please feel free to email or messenger me.
 

 General Things:
 1) If you are unclear and as a result, I miss arguments it is your fault. I will yell clear when needed - if an argument was half a sentence and unclear in the 1AR/1NC assume it doesn't meet the litmus test for having a warrant... meaning I won't vote for a collapse on it.
 2) I am not debating, so I don't have a right to tell you what you read. Please do and read what you like.
 3) Truth over tech is wack - A complete argument (claim, warrant, impact) if dropped is automatically true.
 4) I have a low threshold for 1AR and 2AR extensions for dropped arguments - just mention the tag or interp - but I need explanations for its implications and applications on the flow.
 5) Debates a game
 6) I do not vote on ad hominems
 7) I will boost speaks if you sit down early or/and take no prep only if you can still win.
 ---Varsity LD---
 Quick Prefs
 Theory - 1
 Kritiks - 1
 Phil - 2
 Tricks - 3
 Policy/LARP - 4
 -
 For specifics -
 Tricks: I'm well versed - people give this style of debate a bad name by extending every dropped sentence and throwing crap at the wall with no weighing or implication - impact out a few well and explain why they justify a ballot.
 Theory: No such thing as frivolous theory, reasonability is strategic if well justified, do standard weighing between multiple shells or I'll default substance. I'm not very well versed in grammar rules so err on the side of over-explanation. 1AR theory makes being aff so easy so read it lol. Yes, RVIs is a good argument.
 Stock K's/Topical K's: Please err on the side of heavy LBL rather than reading a 5-minute overview with loads of embedded clash. I view the K as a philosophical argument so framing is important. Have a counter-interpretation to weigh the case and read case defense (extinction inevitable is smart) or else you'll lose. I'm open to VTL arguments, debate bad, ID pol tricks, K tricks (e.g. floating PIKs), and death good. K v K debates are fun as long as there is good impact calc, link analysis and examples.
 Non T: I read a lot of these. I enjoy the "debate good-bad" debate. T Framework makes the game work though so have well developed impact turns.
 Policy/LARP: Getting better at evaluating it.
 Philosophy: I'm confident in evaluating this correctly. Please make framework interactions (hijacks are good). Don't shoehorn terrible offense just so you can read the Phil you want, you will probably lose. if you justify epistemic modesty, explain how I resolve the round correctly under it. I have a high threshold for winning extinction o/w against deontic theories - you probably won't win this if you lose util under epistemic confidence.