Varma,+Rohan

Name: Rohan Varma Years in activity: 2009 - Present Experience: - 3 years of high school debate for Leland High School, qualified to the TOC in 2013 - 2 years of coaching Pittsburgh Central Catholic Prep

In high school I primarily read counterplans, disads, and heavy case. However, during my senior year and the last two years of coaching I began reading critical literature more and have been coaching my teams to run critical arguments. Thus, I have a pretty good amount of experience with all forms of debate and will be able to evaluate whatever form of debate you want to run with.

At a high level, I believe that indepth analysis and clash on warranted arguments is what wins rounds. If you are giving me tagline extensions and answering their taglines during your speech then you are probably not making interesting arguments to the debate.

I will also reward your with speaker points for being ballsy. In high school I loved doing crazy, game changing things in the 1AR. Allocating your time to strategically pressure and dare your opponents will be well-recieved. This requires you to have a high-level view on the round to see where your opponents are spreading themselves out or doubleturning themselves.

Finally, please utilize cross-ex. If you do cross-ex correctly, then you can literally erase arguments your opponents make and you also have access to super juicy quotes that probably exemplify your points better than your own analysis could.

At its core, debate is a presented activity. How your present your arguments is important. Speaking persuasively is everything. Through your voice inflection and intesity I should be able to tell which arguments you are passionate about and which arguments you believe are game-changing. Look at some of the youtube videos of Nate Sawyer and John Spurlock debating if you want some tips on how to be a dam good speaker.

Here are some of my specific argument preferences:  __**Topicality**__: Love the argument. If you can debate your standards well and give me reasons why your interpretation/standards either access or outweigh their standards, then you should be in a good position. I default competing interpretations but I think that aff teams can win reasonability if they argue it well.  __**Case**__: I love case debates. I think that the best part of debate is when both teams are interacting with the intracacies of the plan's solvency mechanism and impact scenarios.  <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__**Disadvantages**__: I think that in the last two years, there haven't been great generic disads like there were when I was debating. That being said, it would be beautiful if you could read a specific link card/get a link from cross-ex. Saying things like "China hates all US ocean activity" against an aff that increases lifeguards at beaches is probably not going to fly. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__**Politics**__: I ran politics religiously in high school and was usually succesful. I think politics is a great place for highly technical and clashing debates. I think that comparative evidence analysis goes a long way in these debates. If you did your research the night before in the hotel and have the best evidence then make sure that you leverage that against your opponents shitty evidence from 2 weeks ago. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__**Counterplans**__: I think that counterplans are generally a good thing. Case specific counterplans that cite 1AC evidence is usually going to get you a nice bump in speaker points. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__**Kritiks**__: I think kritiks are a great way to engage the affirmative's case. I debated anthro in high school and have been primarily coaching capitalism so I will be most well versed on these issues. However, dont assume that I am familiar with your literature. In order for me to give a fair evaluation of the round I need you to give me warranted reasons backing your claims. Don't just refer to your amazing card that washes away all aff arguments. Explain to me why it actually wins you the round. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__**Performance Affs**__: I love these debates. I think that good performace affs are usually educational to everyone in the round. That being said, I 100% will vote for framework if you beat the aff team on it. However, I believe that negative teams that go out of their comfort zone and get creative against the aff always lead to better, more educational, and funner debates.