Reddy,+Pranav

I graduated from the Harker School in 2015 and did debate LD for five years. I'm now an assistant coach at the Harker School. Much of this paradigm is adapted or stolen from Ryan Fink (what's new).

General Stuff -I default to evaluating rounds via a comparing worlds paradigm -I do not base speaker points based on speaking ability but rather based on strategic decisions in rebuttals. I also think speaks should be a reward for engaging in smart or substantive debate -I am not persuaded by the extension of spikes to take out whole positions unless the implications of those spikes are clearly articulated within the AC -I give the 1AR leeway on extensions -I will presume if I have to but not because a debater told me to. In the absence of offense I presume to whichever side is less of a shift from the status quo -I'm literally the worst at flowing, even when I was debating every weekend. I won't catch short spikes or explanations and I highly prefer longer explanations to convince me of your way of viewing the debate to short, fast techs debate

Theory -If your interp is a preposterous attempt to abuse competing interps my threshold for responses goes down -RVIs are fine -I meets or defense don’t get you an RVI in front of me  -Default competing interps and drop debater -Philosophy args don’t disprove fairness or education as voters  -AFC Bad is offense for me. I don't care if the aff phrases the original interp as neg must concede framework I'm still going to view that as defense. I have no rational justification for this other than judge intervention.

Framework/Philosophy -I strongly prefer utilitarianism or consequentialist theories <span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #373e4d; font-family: helvetica,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">-I usually don’t know what dense philosophy frameworks actually say but I don't think understanding them is beyond me provided they're explained in round <span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #373e4d; font-family: helvetica,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">-Since I view debate rounds from a comparing worlds paradigm it means that skepticism and permissibility are probably defensive arguments - they're most likely non-starters <span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #373e4d; font-family: helvetica,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">-I'm very persuaded by life is a pre requisite arguments despite how stupid they may seem

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #373e4d; font-family: helvetica,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Kritikal Arguments <span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #373e4d; font-family: helvetica,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> -I love kritik debate but have high standard for good kritik debate, which I think is done poorly by most debaters. Kritiks aren't just disadvantages with a counter plan, they're an attempt to convince a judge of a different ideology or method of thinking <span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #373e4d; font-family: helvetica,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> -Familiar with most of the common literature <span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #373e4d; font-family: helvetica,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">-I don't have a strong belief on whether kritikal affirmatives are topics or not <span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #373e4d; font-family: helvetica,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">-If you debate against a K you are much more likely to win with clash and not theory or the like