Kumar,+Abinav

I debated LD for as an independent for one year, LD for Stephen F. Austin High School (TX) for one year, and PF for Stephen F. Austin High School (TX) for two years.

I have three years judging experience for LD, CX, and PF on the TFA Houston and Austin circuits.

**Overview**:

There is no perfect world. Debate is a game. Play it as best as you can.

I don't like to do work for the debaters. Flesh out your own arguments. If I have to make up warrants for your arguments, then we have a problem. I consider every argument valid as long as you can provide the logical reasoning behind it. I default reasonability, default truth-testing, and I love a solid framework debate.

Fair warning, I am hyper skeptical about the role of the ballot when it comes to the theory debate, but for the most part I'm pretty flexible with the theory/meta-theory debate as long as you have a clear interp and can justify your standards and voters. In the event you violate your own shell, I will drop you, and give you low speaks. Don't be a hypocrite. I default reasonability. You must justify theory as an RVI if you want it. A well written offensive interp does not require an RVI. __Disclosure Theory:__ I was an independent debater, and never found this to my advantage even though all this stuff was available online. So if you really want to run this, make it good. __ Cites Theory/Wifi Theory: __ You have to run a shell, just have a written interp, at least one standard, a voter, and reason to drop the debater. If you have those 4 things, and run one of these arguments successfully, you win. __ AFC: __ I really like the framework debate, so I might take off .5 speaks if you run this, more if you run it against someone who doesn't know what AFC is. __Misc.:__ I don't believe that time skew is a valid argument. I don't believe that fairness or education are necessarily important in debate.
 * Theory **

I really like K debate. Just have all the required parts of the argument and we'll be fine. Also, if the K has a pre-fiat argument, make sure to make clear its relation to the theory debate.
 * Kritiks (Ks) **

Give me a solid role of the ballot, and you got yourself an audience.
 * Performance/ID Politics **

**Extensions**
I like clean extensions with a re-articulated claim, warrant, and impact. If an argument is dropped, then the extension should take less time/be less fleshed out. I am open to new characterizations of arguments in later speeches but there can not be new arguments actually made.

**BE NICE.** There is no reason to be obnoxious when you feel you are winning. I like witty comments and sass, but just try to know when you are just straight being mean.

I was a terrible spreader, so I will probably dock only .5 speaks for stuttering, just make sure everything is clear. Have fun, run solid arguments, and remember that you are in a room with other human beings.