Kulkarni,+Sanika

I debated on the national and local circuit for Presentation High School for four years and graduated in 2014. I am currently a student at Cornell and I coach for Presentation.

I’m fine with flowing most speeds, but please slow down for large blocks of analytics and author names/taglines. I will yell clear as much as is necessary.

I’m fine with most arguments, including Ks, Theory, policy arguments (plans, CPs, DAs), etc. The only arguments I will reject on face are offensive arguments, i.e rape or genocide good. I feel most comfortable evaluating Util and policy-style arguments, because that’s generally what I debated in high school, but am open to using any decision calculus that you justify. I default to comparative worlds, but will evaluate truth testing as long as you warrant it.

For theory, I default to competing interpretations and drop the argument, but will evaluate the debate however you tell me to as long as you warrant it well. I’m fine with RVIs as long as they’re justified. Please keep in mind, though, that if you run an extremely frivolous theory shell, i.e. “must have a clearly written advocacy text” even if they’re running a DA and have stated that they’re defending the squo, it will be VERY hard to convince me to vote on theory.

I like Ks and ran them as a debater, but am only familiar with some of the literature. As a result, it would be awesome if you could slow down for or at least give a slower explanation of dense cards after you read them. This goes for dense, philosophy heavy frameworks as well.

I like seeing full extensions – that means claim, warrant, impact – but if it’s the 1AR, and something has been conceded, I have a much lower threshold for them. Weighing and decision calculus are really important if you want me to evaluate the round the way you see it! Doing all of these things well will also increase your speaks.

Lastly I tend to dislike arguments like skep triggers (and skep in general), presumption (because I generally believe that offense exists somewhere on the flow, except in very rare cases), permissibility, a prioris, and really blippy spikes. That doesn’t, however, mean that I won’t evaluate them if they’re run, especially if they’re warranted well. Be warned, though, that if you read a really blippy, unwarranted spike in the AC that somehow precludes the entire NC in the next speech, I’m going to be hesitant to grant you that.

Lastly, just be respectful, and have fun!