Muppalla+Srinidhi

Background Debated for five years for Centennial High School a part of Capitol Debate under Daryl Burch, and am currently a freshman at Berkeley. I’ve read and researched arguments from most parts of the spectrum and most of my K work has been on CRT. Important Things If conditionality is not contested, or it’s contested and not extended then I will revert to the status quo if it is the best option Tech over truth, but claims must meet the level of an argument before a response is expected (not all dropped “arguments” matter) Evidence quality is important, but only insofar as knowledge and explanation of that evidence is demonstrated. I don’t agree with the the “I’m not going to call for any cards, debate is a persuasive activity” line of judging and believe research is an incredibly important component. However, you must demonstrate a mastery of that research and the ability to convey your knowledge of the literature. FW/T debates—The aff should be in the direction of the topic, but not necessarily instrumental. In order from most to least okay - aff’s that take a critical approach advocating economic engagement - aff’s that take a critical approach against economic engagement or about something related to economic engagement that doesn’t say it should increase - aff’s that don’t talk about the topic at all. (obviously this begs the question of whether the aff is about the topic, which is up for debate) Zero risk is possible and I think easier for me than a lot of judges. Very persuaded by the argument that at low enough risks opposing claims are equally likely, and thus should be discounted. Theory—I generally lean neg on most theory issues, but am still developing an opinion/my thoughts on a lot of these. I think the quality of solvency advocates (arbitrarily) helps sway how I feel on theory debates.