Yerneni,+Neel

Howdy, I debated at Katy Taylor for four years, and I currently coach at Harker.

-**Please for the love of god, make your tags distinguishable from your cards through some form of vocal intonation. I'll say clear a few times but if you continue to blaze through everything I will deduct 2 speaker points and stop flowing.** -I default to evaluating rounds via a comparing worlds paradigm -I do not base speaker points based on speaking ability but rather based on strategic decisions in rebuttals which means your constructive can go against everything I stand for but have good issue selection and you'll get high speaks -I am not persuaded by the extension of spikes to take out whole positions unless the implications of those spikes are clearly articulated within the AC -I give the 1AR leeway on extensions -I will presume if I have to but not because a debater told me to. In the absence of offense I presume to whichever side is less of a shift from the status quo. -If you get through a round without flashing problems you get higher speaker points -if you make the round shorter you will get higher speaker points -logical fallacy arguments reduce your speaker points
 * General Stuff **
 * - Making the round shorter will get you really high speaks **

**Theory:** -If your interp is a preposterous attempt to abuse competing interps my threshold for responses goes down -RVIs are fine -I meets or defense don’t get you an RVI in front of me -Default competing interps and drop debater -Philosophy args don’t disprove fairness or education as voters

**Framework/Philosophy:** -Obvi I prefer util but you can read whatever you want -I usually don’t know what dense phil frameworks actually say but I rarely feel that impacts the decision because neither does anyone else -since I view debate rounds from a comparing worlds paradigm it means that skepticism and permissibility are probably defensive arguments -I'm very persuaded by life is a pre req args

**Critical Arguments:** -Familiar with some but not a lot of lit -I personally believe topicality should be a constraint on critical AFFs but can be persuaded otherwise in round -If you debate against a K you are much more likely to win with clash not shenanigans


 * Ask me questions if I've missed something important to you. **