arushadabalar@gmail.com

Topshelf

- I'm fine w speed but slow down on interps and analytics

- Default to comparative worlds over truth testing.

LARP

This is what I'm most familiar with. I have read counterplans, disads, PICs, etc. and am comfortable voting for any of them. In these debates, clear weighing between impacts and strong evidence comparison are what are most likely to win my ballot.

Ks:

A good Kritik has three things in my opinion: a framing argument/ROB that frames why I should prioritize the impacts of the Kritik, link specific to the plan, and an alternative that I can easily understand and that actually does something. I primarily went for the cap K, and soft left affirmatives from time to time, but am comfortable evaluating most Ks, unless they involve high theory. However, I will have a high brightline for the explanation of the K.

T/Theory:

Prob won't vote on dumb theory arguments but comfortable evaluating t debates. I think 2 condo is fine but ill vote on the theory argument. above 3 condo, I'll prob err aff. I default drop the debater, competing interps, no RVI’s. If shell is frivolous, I'll lean other way.

Phil:

I went for phil sometimes in highschool, and I think phil debates are actually fun. However, I prefer phil arguments will a few well explained and carded warrants rather than a bunch of blippy warrants.

Tricks:

I have a very high threshold for voting on these.

I am an attorney and a christian minister who wants to judge. I like to see that you came prepare and ready to win your round. You need determination in anything you will do with your life so let’s start from now. Please present your arguments clearly and make sure to tell me why you should win this round. Use cards, evidence, sources, examples and whatever else you can to support your arguments! Only because you said so won't be enough. Less is better than repeating similar points. If you can’t prove your arguments, if you can’t turn your oponen arguments either I will vote you down. Reading is fine but make eye contact with the judge and audience if they are any, even if is online. I allow audience if they are in silence and if they respect others. Speedy speech is fine as long as you are understandable. Please use prep and cross examination time wisely, I probably have another round after you so I can’t waste time. Time yourself but if the alarm sounds please finished your phrase, thank you. Enjoy what you do and good luck !

Tabula Rasa - within reasonable limits (emphasis on reason and logic)

Background

Stephen F Austin HS (LD): 2019-2022

UT 26, I don't debate anymore

Mainly debated in local tournaments (in Houston circuit if that means anything to you) because that's where I had the most success. Would just go even in prelims at national tournaments. Qualified for TFA State in my last year. You can use that as a baseline for my knowledge of LD.

If I yawn during your speech, I promise I'm paying attention. I'm just a sleep-deprived college student.

General

- tech>truth

- add me to the email chain (vishal1034@gmail.com)

- slow down on taglines

- signpost

- clarity>speed

- decide the round for me with clear extensions and weighing

Spreading

I was never a TOC/nat circuit debater and never tried to be. If you're spreading a larp case, I should be able to follow well. If it's a K or theory, spread at your own risk and make sure you give really clear extensions for me to follow.

Argument Prefs

You can run anything you want for the most part. If it's dense phil, K's, or theory just make sure the explanations are clear.

1. LARP: This was my go to and I'm very comfortable with these types of rounds. Make sure your links are specific and reasonable in your DAs, and make sure you clearly extend them in every single speech. Make sure your cp is competitive. If the aff wants to perm make sure you do actually explain why perming the cp.

2. Phil: Most familiar with Rawls, but I'll still evaluate anything as long as you explain the literature well.

3. K's: Most familiar with Cap Ks, should be able to follow most generic Ks. The more unique the K the better you'll have to explain the literature to me. Make sure links are clearly connected to the aff. Have an actual defendable alt.

4. T/Theory (avoid friv theory): As long as your opponent is in an actual violation of something I am completely ok with it. I'll vote on T if their is real proof of in round abuse. I'll vote on rvis if I feel like the shell was clearly frivolous/a blatant time waster in the round.

5. Tricks: I won't vote on them.

Speaker Points

25: you were offensive/rude

26-27: need to improve

27-28: below average

28-28.5: average

28.5-29: above average

29-29.5: you should break here

29.5-30: you have a solid shot at winning the tournament

Updated for 2021 Season:

About Me:

Hey, I'm Cole (He/Him)! I debated 4 years of CX @ Prosper HS.

Housekeeping Notes + CX Paradigm:

Yeah, I'd love to be on the email chain - colekindiger@gmail.com

Pretty much anything goes. I'm truth over tech, but within reason (please give me warrants). I love K and Policy rounds semi-equally, so you shouldn't have to adjust any args to fit any of my preferences. I try to approach every round as a blank slate. Oh, also: I'm not super well versed in this year's topic, so make sure to explain your arguments well and don't assume I already know what you're talking about. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before round!

Speaker Points:

I'm pretty nice with speaks as long as you're respectful and have a good grasp of your arguments. There's one exception to that: if I ask you to slow down, you better slow down. Other than that, though, don't stress about speaker points and have a good debate!

Hi, I'm Adrita! McNeil '22 UT Austin '26

email: raychaudhuriadrita04@gmail.com

I did LD for 4 years, competing on the tfa circuit mostly and some on the nat circuit before online debate burnout lol. I qualified to TFA state my sophomore junior and senior yearsm breaking my senior year, as well as NSDA nats as a junior.

I will vote off of anything that isn't morally repugnant (sexism/homophobia/racism/etc. good) as long as you are doing the work to tell me why you're winning. That being said, I was a policy debater for the most part so I understand the CP/DA debate the best but this did become boring at times so I occasionally ran T/theory, Ks (cap/set col), and low level phil (kant/rawls/hobbes type stuff).

please don't read tricks. or an underview with 76 blips where 1 becomes 3 min of the 2ar. also friv theory is a pretty hard ballot to win in front of me, my threshold for a response is very low. also eval after 1nc/1ar will make me upset

prefs -

1 - larp

2 - T/theory, K(cap/set col), phil (basic kant/hobbes/rawls)

3 - dense pomo/id pol Ks, anything beyond basic phil, K affs

4 - friv thoery/tricks (i will be sad if i have to judge tricks)

random things: time yourself, i'm good with flex prep, idc if u sit or stand during speeches

speaks go down if your mean

speaks go up if you make good strategic choices, or make me laugh

good luck, have fun, and make sure you're learning! ask me any questions you want

I prefer for debaters to move methodically through their points at a reasonable pace and at a reasonable volume. As such, I discourage spreading. If I can't follow it, it didn't happen. Additionally, drops of arguments brought up in the constructive periods will be weighted heavily. Strength of connection between contentions and framework will be weighted heavily aswell. Choose whatever case you are most comfortable with, but I am used to traditional debate only. I award victories to the arguments which are most compelling to me, not necessarily which case provides the most evidence. If you have any questions, feel free to ask!