Yogarajah,+Mirusha

Mirusha Yogarajah Stony Point High School ‘11 University of Texas '15

I debated on the Texas Circuit for four years, competing at local and national tournaments.

I probably will dock your speaks a lot for using one sentence claims to take out your opponent’s cases, that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate it. Hence, I would advise not to put blippy arguments in the framework for the sole purpose of taking out your opponent’s cases or making it a voter. I think prestandards are okay, however, I think many arguments are mislabeled prestandards, when they are not. Make sure to label prestandards correctly or there is chance that I will not vote for them. I probably default to “prove the truth of the resolution true,” but that doesn’t mean that I won’t evaluate other “comparative frameworks,” as long as it is articulated, I will adjudicate the round in that way. I dislike arguments that are “no warrant,” “vague,” “no brightline.” Please don’t do that and if you do, give me the warrants for that argument and why a brightline or warrant is necessary. Tell me why your standards are true. Please don’t assume that suffering is bad and then read reasons why people suffering in scenario x is bad.
 * Frameworking**

Speed is fine with me, in fact, it is probably preferable when used to be technically sufficient and increase the substantive quality of arguments. When assigning speaker points, I determine them based on extensions, strategies, clarity, etc. I probably average a 28.5. There should be a difference at the rate you read evidence and the rate at which you read tags and author names.
 * Speaking**

I don’t necessitate counter-interpretations, but again, it’s the choice of the debaters to determine where they want to go with theory debate. I probably adjudicate theory in terms of reasonability, but that can be changed, based on arguments made in the round. Running “you have to disclose” is an uphill battle. I most likely will not find whatever you say to justify this to be very persuasive.If somebody runs a counter interpretation, I prefer one that is very smart and not just “PICS are bad.” I feel like debaters don’t link the voter to the ballot, so you’ll earn some type of reward for doing that. I understand that theory is evaluated prior to any other argument, so I will evaluate it as such. I evaluate RVI’s.
 * Theory**

I expect arguments to have a claim, warrant and impact when being extended. Merely having extending the tag and author name is not sufficient enough to be considered an extension. I like layering of arguments and articulation of what is the most important argument to the least important. Making my job as a judge easier means you'll receive higher speaker points and a greater chance of receiving the ballot. In terms of critical arguments, I never really ran them when I debated. I have a basic understanding of most critical literature, however I highly recommend dumbing it down to me in any way possible. On a different note, I like debaters who have personality and are humorous. Please avoid being unnecessarily rude in round.
 * Miscellaneous**

If you have any questions, please ask!