Plano Senior '20
 Indiana University '24 (currently debating in policy)
 3X NDT Qualifier (21,22,23)
 Add me on the email chain ajasanideb8@gmail.com
 Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "Kentucky - Round 1 - Indiana JP (AFF) vs Indiana GJ (NEG)"
 CONFLICTS: Plano Senior(TX), Clark High School(TX), Saratoga AG, Plano West MZ, Stanford Online(CA), Southlake Carroll(TX), Plano East(TX)
 TLDR: Flexible, but don't read anything that is offensive.
 Largely agree with
 -Brian Delong
 -Jacob Bosley
 -Ritvik Mahendra
 -Jamie Davenport
 -Matthew Bricker
 -Alex Yoakum
 -Adam Tomasi
 Some Generic Stuff
 1)I care a lot about evidence. I will read through most, if not all, of the cards at the end of the debate. I won't insert arguments into the debate based on what the evidence implies, but I can't vote for you if your explanation of the evidence is based on some misreading. I do this to encourage you to know your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.
 2)I can handle speed so feel free to go as fast as you want as long as you are clear, BUT please accommodate for your opponents who have disabilities.
 3)No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly.I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story. The predispositions I have listed below are general heuristics I use when making a decision, but I will ultimately vote for the team who wins their argument, even if it strays from these conventions. I appreciate debaters who do their thing and do it well.
 4) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.
 5) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, straw-manning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).
 6) I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself. For example, even if I know what the warrant for something like gratuitous violence if I don't think your explanation completes a logical warrant chain on why gratuitous is an accurate description of relationships, I won't vote for you.
 7) Tech>Truth
 8) Prep stops when the speech doc is sent.
 9) Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.
 10) If you are hitting a novice, please don't do something like reading 5 off and making the round less of a learning experience and more of a public beat down. It just isn't necessary. I will give you higher speaks if you make the round somewhat more accessible (ie going slower, reading positions that they can attempt to engage in, etc).
 11) The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)
 12) If you harass your opponent (i.e asking them if they are single in CX), I will drop you with 0 speaks and contact tab. Absolutely have ZERO tolerance for any forms of harassment in front of me. I will not hesitate. Any judge who is tech>truth should believe the same - since to be tech>truth assumes a value in the game, and the game cannot exist without players. Players do not want to play if they are harassed while playing.
 13) NOTE FOR ONLINE: Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed. I would strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but I obviously recognize the very real and valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.
 Policy Paradigm
 K Affs: I don’t care whether you read a plan or not, but affs should have a specific tie to the resolution and be a departure from the status quo that is external from the reading of the 1AC. Impact turning framework is more strategic than counter-defining words or reading clever counter-interps, but you should have a clear model of debate and what the role of the negative is.
 Framework: Affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic, even if not traditional endorsement or hypothetical implementation of a policy. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses. Teams should have a robust defense of what their model of debate/argument looks like and what specific benefits it would produce. Teams tend to do better in front of me if they control the framing of what I should do with my ballot or what my ballot is capable of solving. Whether it signals an endorsement of a particular advocacy, acts as a disincentive in a games-playing paradigm, or whatever else, my conclusion on what the ballot does often filters how I view every other argument. Teams tend to do better with me the more honest they are about what a given debate or ballot can accomplish."TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. I expect the block to provide an example plan text. Solvency evidence is ideal, but a warranted explanation for how the plan text connects to the aff's broader advocacy/impact framing can be sufficient. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.
 Policy v K: Don't lose the specificity of the aff in favor of generic K answers. Reading long framing contentions that fail to make it past the 1AC and 2ACs that include every generic K answer won't get you as far as taking the time to engage the K and being intentional about your evidence. You should clearly articulate an external impact and the framing for the round. I'm more likely to buy framework arguments about how advocating for a policy action is good politically and pedagogically than fairness arguments.
 K v Policy: Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff. Make sure to tell me why the impacts of the K come first and weigh the impacts of the K against that of the alt. Absent serious investment in the framework portion of the debate/massive concessions, the aff will most likely get to weigh the aff's impacts against the K so impact comparison and framing are vital. Framework arguments should not only establish why the aff's framework is bad but also establish what your framework is so that my ballot is more aligned more closely with your framework by the end of the debate. K's don't have to have an alt and you can kick out of the alt and go for the links as case turns.
 K v K: Affs should have an advocacy statement and defend a departure from the status quo. Affs don't have to have a clear method coming out of the 1AC, although I am more likely to vote neg on presumption absent a method. I have a higher threshold for perms in debates where the aff doesn't defend a plan but just saying "K affs don't get perms" isn't sufficient for me to deny the perm.
 Policy v Policy: Nothing much to say here, but please weigh!!
 T: I enjoy a good T debate and think T is very underutilized against policy affs. Make sure you are substantively engaging with the interpretation and standards and aren’t just blitzing through your blocks. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
 CP: Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. 2NCs/2NRs should start with a quick overview of what the CP does. Blazing through this at top speed will not contribute to my understanding. Fine with you reading PICS
 DA: Framing is everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness, or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.
 Theory: I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Conditionality is fine within reason. When it seems absurd it probably is, and it's not impossible to persuade me to reject the team, but it is an uphill battle. It's hard to imagine voting aff unless there are 4 or more conditional advocacies introduced.
 LD paradigm
 Theory: I believe that RVI is very illogical and non-sensical, thus I will not vote on RVIs. Everything else look at the policy paradigm.
 Philosophy/FW: I really like a good framework debate. Please make all framework arguments comparative. I will default to truth testing unless told otherwise.
 Tricks:After doing policy for a while, I just think tricks are silly and are usually very underdeveloped. If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or misallocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I won't vote on a trick that I don't understand or doesn't have a warrant. Please don't blitz through spikes. I am quite willing to give an RFD of "I didn't flow that," "I didn't understand that," or "I don't think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.
 Policy and Kritik: Look at the policy paradigm.
 PF Paradigm
 I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus. I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.
 1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus besides offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate the risk of offense claims.
 2)The First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).
 3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- don't try to respond in a later speech.
 4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.
 5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.
 6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my Policy/LD paradigm above.
 7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.
 8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.
 9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.
 10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.
 Speaker Points Scale
 29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for
 29-29.3 – Very, very good
 28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes
 28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes
 28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems
 28 – 28.3 – Average varsity debater
 27-27.9 – Below average
 27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.