Parthasarathy,+Kanisha

My name is Kanisha Parthasarathy. I debated for four years at Barrington High School and am a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. I coach individuals at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology and Barrington High School and have been an instructor at VBI.

Much of this paradigm is similar to Danielle Smogard's with some minor edits.

> I like standards and I think debaters can develop very smart, door-closing arguments if they delve deeply into the standards and explain how the rest of the arguments in the round become more or less relevant depending on the outcome of the standards debate. That said, if the standards are the same/similar or the standards debate is superficial (ie: only making no brightline arguments, etc) then don't bother. Standards aren't necessary and sometimes they can be confusing, so if you don't want to run one, I'm happy to evaluate the round in the way that you tell me to. BUT, there needs to be some evaluative mechanism; it can be a burden, it can be a calculus solely based on net benefits, it just has to be warranted and be explicit. __**Side note: I don't believe in prestandard arguments. Every argument implicitly links to some standard and it is the job of the debater to explain why that standard (such as truth) should be evaluated before the substantive standard in case.**__
 * General views on debate:**
 * Paradigm: I generally view debate as a competition between worlds: the person who wins is the one who shows me why their side (their world) is more desirable under whatever framework is being advanced. If a debater wants to advance a different way of viewing the resolution (perhaps as a statement of truth) they have to give me warranted reasons why that view is better for debate. I am more likely to accept this if the reasons are specific to the resolution, such as its wording, etc.
 * Debate conduct: Debate is supposed to be fun so don't be rude. If you debate someone much younger/inexperienced than you are, be courteous to them and help guide them through the round. If you still win, but are an awful human being, your speaks will suffer.
 * Standards:**

I'm not well versed in meta-ethics and so don't make the round devolve into a meta-ethics debate.
 * Meta-Ethics:**

I don't really like critical arguments, mostly because they are not explained well, the links are contrived, and the impacts are ridiculous. Don't be afraid to run them in front of me, just be sure that you don't make any of the mistakes listed above. I seldom ran critical arguments in high school and am not very familiar with the literature so your explanations will have to be thorough. __**Another side note: I don't like skeptical arguments because they don't defend a solid advocacy and can't be turned. I will quickly accept a few short, smart answers to dismiss skepticism.**__
 * Critical Arguments:**

I won't vote on disclosure theory or any sort of genocide good mindset. Arguments that I dislike but will vote on if dropped are skepticism, determinism, generic kritiks of the resolution, arguments that show that you haven't done research on the topic, etc.
 * Other Arguments:**

Only run theory when there is abuse and when answering theory you have to run a counter-interp. Treat theory like any other argument in a debate round; you need to make //offensive// responses, weigh between standards, and weigh between shells if there are multiple shells. I don't have a problem with RVIs and I think potential abuse is ridiculous but if it's uncontested I'll vote on it.
 * Theory:**

I can keep up with most speeds, but I am bad at flowing and I haven't flowed in a few months. Slow down for relevant parts of the case and pause between arguments when spreading. If you are being word economical, the pauses will help you more than they will hurt you since it will give your judges time to write everything down. Don't speak quickly just to speak quickly or spit out lots of arguments. Use speed as a tool to make debate more substantive. I will yell clear twice, each times your speaks will go down, and after that I will not evaluate what I can't understand.
 * Speed:**

Evidence is necessary to make empirical claims and I give analytical arguments more weight when they are supported by evidence. That said, evidence must be run with additional explanation. Cases shouldn't be a string of cards without some explanation of impacts, a summary of the advocacy, or the implications of each piece of evidence.
 * Evidence:**

Rebuttals should be a balance of line by line argumentation and big picture debate. I like voting issues, but you don't need to label them as such. Just make sure you are clear about which extensions are winning you the round. Please explain how arguments interact with one another (this includes things like weighing, preclusion, etc.). I give the 2AR a little bit of leniency when they are explaining things said in the 1AR because not everything in the 1AR can be developed as best as it can be. That said, I won't vote on new arguments so be careful not to cross that line. __**Side note: I don't believe in presumption; there is always a risk of offense in the round.**__
 * Final Rebuttals:**

I start at a 27.5 and go up or down. Politeness, clarity, strategic choices... those are the things that affect my designation of speaker points.
 * Speaker Points:**

If you have more questions, feel free to ask! Enjoy your round :)