Sharma,+Arun


 * CONFLICTS: Dulles High School (TX), CyWoods CJ/YW/AZ (TX), Katy Taylor AW (TX), TAMS MX(TX), Kempner JS(TX)**


 * Background**: I did LD for Travis High School in Richmond, TX for 4 years. I competed on the national circuit my senior year acquiring 3 bids. I qualled to NFL/NSDA Nationals my junior and senior year. I study MIS and Philosophy at UT Austin. Thnx to Eddie for finding some of the gifs.


 * General Philosophy**: I like debate. I will listen to all arguments because I think students should have a space to be creative with their thoughts. I think debate is important because it teaches us skills we can use the rest of our lives. That being said I do have some caveats on what arguments I like and dislike so read the specific sections below if you have any questions.


 * POST BERK/HARVARD 2017:**
 * 1. I've realized out of round theory has become a huge thing- coin flips, telling plan texts, disclosure etc. Unless a rule is explicitly in the tournament rules, I'm not going to "hack" for it. For some reason people think I'm a disclosure theory (normal) hack. I'm not. I think it's good, but if you have some unique arguments against disclosure feel free to pref me and make those arguments.**


 * 2. After being grilled incessantly over the past 4 years- I thought going over how I make decisions might make things clearer and help prefs :**


 * A: Evaluate the most relevant layers in the context of the implicit/explicit constitutive feature of debate (Ex: Am I an educator, am i a logician inquiring into the truth or falsity of the resolution, etc).**


 * B: See if there any explicit framing mechanisms under this constitutive purpose.**


 * C: See what the most relevant offense underneath B is**


 * D: If there are competing warrants for the most relevant offense (ex: X is good and X is bad) I will look to-**
 * 1. The debaters' relevant weighing/comparison for that argument**
 * 2. In the (according to the past 2 years at least) incredibly high chance that there is no weighing or conflicting weighing claims with no meta-weighing- I will evaluate the arguments. This means I will CLOSELY read the evidence and determine how good it is. NOTE: When I've done this over the past 2 years, judges and students have gotten incredibly upset- I do not care if you are upset- if I am forced into this stage it means you didn't do enough weighing.**


 * 3. Solvency advocate theory is really really really really insipid. If a plan has solvency evidence it means that you have turns in most cases, and I think that solves most abuse if not all.**


 * POST STRAKE 12/16/17:**
 * After judging and hearing stuff this year that makes me either A-irritated or B- makes debate hard for me I'm deciding to use the following rules:**
 * A- I will actively intervene on evidence ethics based issues. This includes but is not limited to:**
 * 1- Full Text Disclosure Theory- I will only vote on this if you prove your opponent has a ton of paywall articles and weren't responsive to messages asking for the full text of the articles**
 * 2- Brackets Theory- I will check the bracketed evidence and then go and try and find the article it was cut from and then based on my OWN opinion will decide if the evidence was miscut**
 * 3- Lying Accusations- these are case by case but are based on my judgement of the round**
 * For evidence based ethics issues I will stop the round (for myself) when these arguments are read and determine if abuse has happened. If I feel that abuse has happened then I will vote down the person who committed the abuse. If the person initiating the evidence issue is wrong, I reserve the right to give a Loss 20 based on how I'm feeling. Evidence ethics is a serious issue and I want it to be treated as such- not abused for cheap and'technical'wins. This means READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.**


 * B- If you read disclosure and your opponent is a novice who doesn't know what disclosure is OR they have always disclosed and forgot to disclose one position I will ignore the shell. Disclosure is a net good norm- i think bullying kids with it or playing games of "gotchya" are probably bad.**


 * C- stupid semantic theory things are a no go- if you accidentally say "the aff" instead of "the neg" on your interp I won't count it against you. Likewise, if you misspell a word but say it properly while reading your interp I won't cause it against you. This is debate, not a spelling bee.**


 * D- I really hate this whole- can you pause and delete and resend the doc stuff. I don't know when email chains became a substitute for flowing but I'd like it to stop. It's frustrating- just flow the round. There's no penalty- just know the longer you take the more irritated I get which may or may not impact your speaks.**


 * Post Strake Things:**
 * 1. I realized not everyone gets the GIFS. To make things easier I'll vote on anything as long as it A- has a warrant B- is tied to the ballot in some shape.**


 * 2. Be nice. Please. Don't be mean, or rude, or condescending. It just makes everything incredibly awkward and weird.**


 * 3. In regards to what I like the most- I used to say I liked K's. Then people read generic K's in front of me. Please do you. Do what you think is best. That being said I think nuanced positions are great. But since people really really like knowing preferences K's>FW|Larp>Theory|Tricks. Needless to say if you're really good @ one thing over another do that thing.**


 * 4. Embedded clash exists and is real. I evaluate arguments in relation to how they fit with each other in the round.**


 * 5. Disclosure is good- you should disclose. Please do it. I know a lot of people use the wiki. If you use the wiki there is legitimately no excuse for not disclosing. Free loading off of other people's work isn't cool. If you prove that your opponent uses the wiki and hasn't been disclosing- ez win. I'm also under the impression that you should disclose any potential plan texts you'll be reading.**


 * That being said- I get that things happen that make disclosing hard- ex: bad wifi, no time in between rounds,etc. To that end, I'd really appreciate if debaters tried to contact each other via FB or some other method to verify what the other person is reading. This is why having contact info on your wiki and being receptive is good.**


 * This also makes disclosure theory far more persuasive to me- if you prove that you tried to communicate with your opponent and your opponent didn't disclose on top of that, it makes the abuse story far more persuasive.**


 * 6. Tricks are really cool and I'll vote on them- caveat is you need to be honest in cross ex and not deceptive about the function of arguments. If you're honest about tricks and win them, I'll vote on them super happily.**


 * 7. Just because you say ROB doesn't mean you have an ROB. All framing mechanisms in the round need to be warranted. If you have a cool framing mechanism, explain why it comes first and links to some aspect of debate.**


 * Speed:**


 * Good Theory Arguments :**


 * Bad Theory Arguments:**


 * Plans/CP’s/DA’s**


 * Good FW's with nuanced warrants**


 * Recycled FW's:**


 * Good Critical Arguments that are explained well :**


 * Generic K's that are Bad:**


 * Spikes/Tricks/Skep (Just be honest about them) :**


 * Other General Things:**
 * How I feel when you weigh well:**


 * How I feel when you're disrespectful to me or your opponent:**




 * How I feel when you ask me for your speaks**


 * How I feel when you win the round definitively but don't sit down early**


 * Finally do your best and have tons of fun.**