Sripathi,+Vidhaath

My name is Vidhaath Sripathi. I debated LD for three years for Hunterdon Central Regional High School and was quite successful on the local and national circuit. I am a freshman engineer at Rutgers University and am currently debating for their Parliamentary team.
 * Intro**:

I debated extensively on both the local New Jersey league (3 years) as well as the national circuit (2 years) throughout my high school debate career. With my tenure on the local circuit, I became very familiar with traditional LD style and enjoyed its presentational merits. On the national circuit, however, I was very experimental with policy-style debate, often running/arguing against kritiks, counterplans, PICs, theory, dis-ads, etc. During my senior year at national tournaments, I was known to spread and run Word PICs and theory, leading me to several bubble and TOC bid rounds at notable tournaments like Columbia, Ridge, Harvard, and many others.
 * Experience:**

I like to see clash-intensive, flow heavy rounds. That means I want to hear the technical jargon (i.e. extensions, drops, cross-applications, voting issues, counter-interps, etc.), but it has to be stuff that actually mattered in the round. I totally abide by the mindset that a conceded or dropped argument is true in the decision calculus, but if it’s a blippy contention that ended up being a wash, I probably won’t care thaaaaat much about it. Basically, be clear in your argumentation, but be even clearer in your weighing. Show me how you’re not just winning your arguments, but beating theirs. Doing this will make me happy, so I won’t have to think too much by the end of the round (Let’s be honest, that wait for the judge to make his RFD is the absolute worst, so let’s avoid that being dope debaters). In terms of what arguments I’m skilled enough to evaluate/listen to/tolerate, I’m very open-minded. That means spreading, theory, Ks, PICs, performances, and narratives are all dope, as long as you don’t suck at them and make it clear to me what you’re arguing. So post-modern lit is completely okay, but warrant and explain to me what you’re saying because I probably haven’t read that exact Nietzsche card you pulled from your policy dumpfile.
 * What I Like**:

I’m very chill with most stuff, but I think this needs to be said – don’t be a dick. I’ve experienced/witnessed rounds where debaters just become evil once the timer starts and just start being mean to their opponents. No, it’s not perceptual dominance just because you scream at them and laugh at how they don’t know speech times. Specifically for Varsity kids, if you’re hitting a newbie, be nice to them. Beat them in round with your arguments, but get up and give them a handshake after the round. This stuff will influence your speaks (depending on how egregious the offensive behavior is), so there’s your incentive. Also, I will listen to anything, including suffering good, whiteness good, racism good, etc, but you better prepare to convince me in the most amazing way possible. It will take me a long way to believe that racism or any form of oppression/discrimination is okay, but if you think you’re up for the challenge to prove me wrong, then go for it. If you’re iffy about it, I’d recommend against it. But I do love you radical debaters, so don’t be scared to just ask me specifically about it before round.
 * What I Don’t Like:**

I’m good with it. I spread extensively on the circuit, but if you’re bad at it and can’t make a coherent pronunciation, I will yell CLEAR. I’ll probably dock your speaks after a couple yells, but just make eye contact with me and I’ll make it clear if I’m following you or not.
 * Speed**:

I guess I default to reasonability, but if you want to present a counter-interp I can easily adjudicate based on competing interpretations. I don’t really care that much about justifying why one standard is better than the other, so don’t waste too much time on that stuff. Make the interp clear, use the standards to clash, and make your voter clear. I don’t choose fairness over education or vice-versa. Both are valid standards in my eyes – you convince me on what you want me to vote on. Also, if your interp is ridiculous and stupid – I’ll listen, but I will also probably look through your BS (some call this a gut check). Obviously use it for legitimate abuse in the round or to justify types of cases (Word PICS Good/Bad, Conditional CP Bad, etc.), but don’t get pissed because your opponent’s citations aren’t MLA.
 * Theory**:

I’m good with CP’s, PICs, Ks, plans, etc. Run that shit, but be clear. Warrant, clearly explain, and SIGNPOST.
 * Policy-Style Arguments**

I’m not mean with speaker points, so I’d consider myself pretty generous with these. I will give 30’s to a debater who demonstrates perceptual dominance, clear analysis of the round, and are engaging. If you’re funny, even better! I’ll explain performances later, but rappers will get an auto-30. I’m for real.
 * Speaker Points**

Performance and narratives get a lot of shit on the circuit, but I’m a fan. I used to run my cases as they were, but re-written as a rap. After rapping I would provide a micropolitical and theoretical justification for voting on rap. I LOVE these rounds, so if you want to go ahead with rapping or singing, I’ll give you mad props. You’ll probably win (if you do it well), but worst case, I’ll give you a 30.
 * Alternative Styles**

This is awesome, and I recommend debaters to take these positions a lot more. There are severe injustices in the debate community – economic, racial, sexual, gender-based, etc. – and you guys aren’t just witnesses to them, you are the direct resource for changing them. Making issues heard in a debate forum will catch my attention, and more often than not, I would love to hear the dialogue occur between the debaters. Just also make it clear what the role of the ballot is, so I know exactly what to do.
 * Micropolitical**

If you have ANY other questions or just wanna chill out, hit me up on e-mail: Vidhaath.Sripathi@gmail.com