Kolli,+Rachana

Tl;dr: Read good arguments well, make sense, and be nice; it’ll probably go well for you if you do all that.

Background: I was an LD debater for Colleyville Heritage from 2011-2015. I’ve encountered many types of arguments in different circuits (TOC qualifiers, NFL/NSDA, Nats, etc.) so while I’m definitely more comfortable with certain types of arguments, I’ve been acquainted with most things.

Speed: Spreading is fine. So long as you’re clear and emphasizing card names and tags, we should get on swimmingly. That said, I have been out for a year so I might call slow or clear and I’ll expect you to oblige. If you don’t listen to me, I will give up and just put my pen down. Just remember I only evaluate arguments I hear.

Framework: Big fan. That said, too often I feel like framework debates get super messy so good strategic framework debate in front of me will likely give your speaks a boost. Whether or not you have a traditional framework, though, TELL ME HOW I’M SUPPOSED TO EVALUATE THE ROUND. If no one tells me how I’m supposed to weigh arguments and y’all don’t compare impacts, I will not be a happy camper.

Policy Arguments: I’ve written and run CPs, DAs, plans, what have you, so run what you want. If you don’t know your case, though, there’s almost no chance I will by the end of the round and I’m reluctant to vote on things I don’t understand.

Ks: I’ve only really dabbled with them. While I am acquainted with them and will listen to them, I’m not very familiar with some of the extremely critical literature. If you can’t explain it well, I’m probably not the judge with whom you want to try it out.

Theory: I don’t like frivolous theory but don’t be afraid to use it to check abuse. I default to reasonability unless you justify competing interps and I am fine with paragraph theory (I don’t need a full shell so long as you tell me why the argument in question is illegit and tell me what I’m supposed to do with that conclusion). If the theory debate is a bunch of buzzwords and blippy analytics, it’s that much harder for me to follow. Basically, just be careful and make sure your shells have good warrants.

Decorum/Speaks: Like I said, spreading is fine, but combining that with style and persuasive ability will make me (and your speaks) very, very happy. Excellent strategy will also be extremely beneficial to your speaks. If you have both, you might just earn yourself a 30. Most importantly~

BE. NICE. Yes, it’s debate, it’s literally arguing competitively, but it’s possible to voice different opinions politely. I don’t mind a little bit of sass and banter (I’m typically pretty sarcastic myself) but I expect it to be in good spirits and backed up with good argumentation. If you don’t think you can walk the line, just be nice. Your speaks will take a hit if I think you are being rude, mean, or condescending. If you’re an older debater and you’re hitting someone new to the activity, don’t debate down but don’t scare them out of the activity either.

Conclusion: If you’ve got any more questions, e-mail me at __rachanakolli2019@u.northwestern.edu__ or find me before round. I’m also very happy to talk about the debate and specific arguments after the round as well.