Gupta,+Kiwi

I debated for 4 years at Dulles High School in Sugar Land, Texas. I participated at TOC, NFL, UIL, and TFA tournaments.

I don't have a very precise idea of how I view rounds as a judge, considering that I only recently graduated.

In terms of argumentation: 'Progressive' debate trends are fine with me, IE counter-plans, critical arguments, etc. If you are running extremely dense literature, please slow down on the cards, and explain the story clearly.

I have a very high threshold for theory. By that, I mean, I will listen to theory arguments, but I need the debater to explain clearly why I have the jurisdiction to vote for them. If a theory argument is poorly constructed, or if the abuse isn't very clearly present in the round, I will disregard the theory.

Prestandards/Au priori arguments are okay, I used them liberally as a debater. However, the reason for why they are truly pre-standards must be articulated in round.

In terms of style/pet-peeves, etc.

Speed is fine, slow down on author names, tag lines, and 'important' arguments. I definitely prefer clarity to speed however, so only spread if it is necessary and you can be clear. I hate the idea of using speed as a tactic. If you have plenty of time left for your speech, but you blazed through it, this will hurt your speaks.

I'm down with flex prep, but both debaters have to agree to it.

I //think// that I'm liberal with speaker points. Being unclear, rude, offensive, or too unprofessional will hurt speaks. On the other hand being humorous, clear, and doing a good job of explaining your arguments will help speaks a lot.

I hate when a debater is late to their round.

I like when debaters ask questions before/after the round. If this isn't complete enough for you, feel free to approach me and ask anything.