Velagandula,+Deek

I debated LD for four years at Niskayuna High School both on the local and national circuits and am currently a student at Northwestern.

General: I default to a comparative evaluation of debate rounds, unless arguments for a truth testing framework are presented and warranted. I don't vote on arguments simply because they are extended, essentially if you don't make the warrants and impacts clear, they aren't there in my head or on my flow at the end of the round. I presume neg, unless presume aff arguments are won in the round.

I definitely prefer a standards based debate just because it makes it extremely easy for both me and you to weigh and exclude arguments. Extremely strong frameworks and standards debates will get you good speaks.

Speaks: I go from a 25-30 scale, with an average of 27. The smarter and more creative you are in round, the better your speaks will probably be. Just don't be disrespectful, especially if you're facing a debater who clearly has less experience or skill than you do. Feel free to crack a few jokes in front of me; if they aren't straight up stupid, they'll help your speaks.

Theory: Personally, I hate to hear people run theory when there really isn't abuse. If there really is abuse, please read theory and I will be more than willing to vote for you. Please Please Please run theory when people have multiple unsufficient burdens or run multiple aprioris. //However,// if there isn't abuse and theory is run, I will vote on the violation if the other debater can't beat it down. It will hurt your speaks though. Make sure every internal link is extended, or I won't vote on it.

Speed: Feel free to go fast, just not extremely fast. If you're going too fast for me, I will yell "clear." I won't vote on arguments that I didn't hear or wasn't able to flow.

A prioris: I don't prefer to vote on these arguments, as usually they are unwarranted and end up being two sentence blips stuck in the middle of the framework. If you do run them however, clearly explain why they are truly preclusive and no-risk arguments. If I do vote on the argument, it will show negatively in your speaks.

Critical Arguments: I am not extremely versed in most critical literature. That being said, feel free to run critical arguments, but make sure that they are clearly and //more slowly// explained than other arguments. Don't clarify the extremely confusing rhetoric of your constructive in your rebuttal, but make sure I can understand it in the constructive itself. Again, if I don't understand it, I'm not going to vote on it.

Do what you want to do, make it clear, and just go out there and have fun.