Avantsa,+Akshay

Background: I debated for 4 years for Dulles High School, competing both locally on the Houston circuit and the Texas TOC circuit. I qualified to state my sophomore, junior, and senior year, where I competed in double-octos as a senior.

General Philosophy: I think debate is an interesting activity, in that it provides a unique forum for students to discuss a variety of topics in an educational manner. I will vote off most types of arguments as long as they are well-warranted and impact back to some sort of weighing mechanism. A clearly articulated weighing calculus is a very easy way to my ballot.

Speed: Speed is fine, but I will say clear twice before docking speaks. I ask that at the start of your speech, you don’t go super fast, but give me time to warm up and adjust to your speaking.

Theory: I default to a competing interpretations paradigm and drop the argument. I hold theory debates to a higher threshold in the sense that there needs to be very clear abuse in the round. Theory read just as time suck for your opponent, will cost you speaks because I think there are far more educational ways to win rounds. Given that, if there is clear abuse, by all means read theory. Feel free to my arguments against my default assumptions, I will certainly listen and evaluate them. RVI’s are okay assuming there is actual offense linked to the RVI, which means “I meet” arguments would not justify an RVI. Also, give me clear weighing analysis between the standards to minimize the amount of intervention that I have to do in the round.

Policy Arguments: These are all totally okay, I spent a good chunk of my career reading Plans, CP’s, and Disads. I am comfortable voting on any of these arguments, given that each has all the necessary parts. Weighing through a clear impact calculus are really important to these arguments, and I’m comfortable with most extinction scenarios, given they’re reasonable.

 Critical Arguments: I have read a moderate amount of crictical literature and found it to be interesting, as such I would be comfortable voting on such arguments. I do ask that if you read critical arguments, you slow down as the rhetoric can be dense. I prefer kritiks with specific links to the AC with an alternative, as a posed to generic Kritiks that can be recycled on every topic.

Speaker Points: I’m usually pretty generous with speaker points. The easiest way to win speaks for me is through humor, strategy, and confidence. I don’t want to be the guy who stops you from clearing because of speaks, so after the round tell me and I will grant you speaks accordingly (somewhere between 29.5-30). Other than that my range is typically from 28-29. If you make racist, sexist, or straight up asinine comments in round, I will give you a 25.

Arguments I will reluctantly vote for (with low speaks): 1. Skepticism 2. Presumption 3. Unwarranted Pre-Standards 4. Unneccessary (Time-Suck) Theory 5. Arguments read just to confuse your opponent (and potentially confuse me)

This is just basic information, but if you have any more specific questions feel free to ask before the round. Thank you and good luck!