Talpallikar,+Arjun

Arjun Talpallikar Clements '15 UT '19 I debated PF and LD for Clements. I coached Kempner HS in Fall 2015.

Some people who influenced how I think about debate are: Rebecca Gelfer, Mohammad Asif, Joshua Yang, and Austin Tang. This might help you in understanding how I judge rounds.

General: I'll vote on anything. I'm pretty decent with speed. I will say clear. Feel free to ask questions before the round.

Speaks: They're based on your overall performance. Being strategic or interesting will improve them. Being irritating, incomprehensible, or overly rude (not sassy, which is encouraged!) will harm your speaks. I'm not sure what I average, but 30s go to debaters who I think can make it to late elims. If you are obviously significantly more experienced, or are very obviously winning, and you end your speeches early/help your opponent (without being condescending) I will reward you heavily with speaks.

If you can make fun of one of the people named at the beginning of my paradigm during a speech you get a 30.

Lastly, somehow a new trend has emerged (particularly in PF) in which debaters paraphrase their evidence. This is functionally equivalent to the (cheating) practice of clipping. Cheating will destroy your speaks.

Specific arguments: I am most comfortable judging disad or kritik debates. I am less comfortable with Kantian ethics and dense analytic framework debates.

For theory/T, i default competing interps, drop the argument. I prefer debates about substance, but I understand the strategic utility of these arguments. However, I have never heard a good response to "it's on the wiki, casenegs exist, you just chose not to cut them" I am not very sympathetic to arguments that describe a research or work skew.

Above all, have fun and try to learn something