Kalluri,+Nina

I competed in LD for 3 years on the TFA, TOC, and NFL circuits at the The Kinkaid School in Houston, Texas and graduated in 2015. I now coach Kinkaid and attend Rice University.

I’m comfortable/familiar with whatever style of debate you prefer, whether that’s more traditional or more circuit-y.

Short version: Read well developed, not offensive, resolutionally grounded arguments and **weigh** your offense/provide me a clear **ballot story**, and I will most likely vote for you. I’m open to most arguments; given you explain to me how they operate in the round.

**Speed** is fine, but I’ve never been awesome at flowing so don’t start out at top speed. **On a scale from 1-10, 1 being the slowest and 10 the fastest, I’d rate myself a 6**…I’d appreciate some time to adjust to your speaking style before you speed up. **Please slow down for important parts of your case---spikes, plans, counterplans, interps (any advocacy texts really) as well as author names/tags.** **Theory/topicality:** I default to reasonability and drop the argument, and am very inclined to give aff RVIs, but if you win reasons why I should believe otherwise, that’s fine too. You probably have to be topical. Theory/T have never been my favorite part of this activity and hold these arguments to a certain high standard. That doesn’t mean I will blatantly ignore a dropped argument, but your speaks will reflect it if you choose to read frivolous theory or muck up the debate with a ton of spikes. I do not like paragraph theory. Like I said, reading these type of arguments will not result in an auto loss, but the debate might be an uphill battle for you. If you want to have a nuanced, fast theory debate, I am not the judge for you. This all being said, I think theory has its place in debate and if you read a well-warranted, creative theory shell when there is real abuse happening in round, I will gladly evaluate it. Theory as a strategic layer in the debate is a legitimate choice and you should not be discouraged from utilizing it. At the end of the round, WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. If neither debater is weighing offense under their interp you can bet that I’m going to intervene and that intervention will be going to SUBSTANCE instead. I WILL NOT ARBITRARILY ADJUDICATE THE THEORY DEBATE---if you want me to buy your interp COMPARATIVE WEIGHING IS KEY. **Policy Arguments:** I love a good util debate and believe these are the debates I am best at evaluating. That being said, don’t pull out your half assed policy backfiles because you think I’ll vote for your underdeveloped counterplan---do what you feel most comfortable/best doing and I will reward you for that. Plans, CPs, disads are mostly what I read as a debater and are all great given they have all of their necessary parts. WEIGHING EVIDENCE/IMPACTS IS SO IMPORTANT IN THESE DEBATES, DO IT. I really like unique justifications for policymaking/unique policy style arguments in general. **Critical Arguments:** I think critical arguments/debates can be really fun to judge given you actually know what you’re talking about and I know what you’re talking about. I haven’t read much of the common critical literature, but am perfectly willing to vote on anything you read as long as you take the time to clearly explain your argument. I will not vote on Ks that are missing necessary components (framework, alternatives, etc). Don’t be shifty about whether your offense functions pre or post fiat. If your opponent can’t discern how the K functions, chances are I can’t either. I don’t have any predispositions to certain types of Ks and open to any argument as long as you have a specific link to the aff. I don’t like generic Ks or Ks of the resolution, but will vote on any argument that is won in the round. **Speaker Points:** I don’t think I have any specific way I give points, but my main concern is courtesy and respect to your opponent, judge, and the debate space. If you’re a decent person, that shouldn’t be an issue. After that, I will reward strategic choices made in round, WEIGHING, and humor/perceptual dominance. A WELL EXECUTED CX WILL GO A LONG WAY HERE; it was one of my favorite parts of a debate round. I usually start at about a 28.5, but it’s not hard to move up from there. Literally any weighing will probably jump you up to a 29. You will get an **AUTOMATIC 25** if you read any morally repugnant arguments. If you have to ask me what that means, you probably shouldn’t pref me. Also, your speaks will be negatively affected if you create a hostile space for me or other debaters, but especially for less-experienced or clearly new debaters.
 * Other stuff/tricks ** : I’m not a fan of “tricks” in debate, whether that’s in the forms of spikes, skep, permissibility, presumption, whatever else you kids have come up with. If you choose to go this route, don’t expect me to vote for you because “they dropped spike number 5 under subpoint a so you vote aff.” Arguments consist of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If you give me those three things, you shouldn’t have any problems. You probably shouldn’t leverage these kind of arguments against, say, a structural violence framework in front of me.

Most importantly, be kind and have fun! Debate should be a fun activity. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at ninakalluri1996@gmail.com or ask me before the round.