Metelitsa,+Eddie

CONFLICTS: Clements (TX) Dulles MK (TX)

 Yearly Update: It seems like LD rounds have devolved into either a theory shit show or poorly written high theory ks with no impact. Personally, I really like good theory debates and well written ks, but those rarely happen. In terms of theory it seems like the community has just wholeheartedly given up on weighing arguments, and people just read a bunch of pre-written blocks with little argument interaction – if you do that your speaks won’t be great. This style of debate also makes it virtually impossible for me to objectively choose a winner, so please consider weighing your arguments J . As for Ks, I probably went for Ks the most in High school/College, but for 90% of k rounds I judge the Ks are straight from backfiles and the extensions are terrible/non-existent. So if you’re going to read a K in front of me please be familiar with the lit and make extensions J .

If you have any other questions please refer to the gifs on Arun's page, ima leave the link here: http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sharma%2C+Arun

Experience: I did LD at Clements, went to State, debated locally and a bit on the national circuit. I did a little bit of policy in college. Now I coach a couple of LDers mostly on the national circuit, so I should be relatively familiar with the topic.

General: I am willing to vote on any argument, as long as it is warranted and impacted well. While I will listen to any argument I am not a clean slate without any bias’s, there are arguments I like and don’t like, but I will do my best to not factor that into the decision I make.

Speed: Speed is fine, however I ask that you do slow down on tags and definitely SLOW DOWN ON AUTHOR NAMES, because when you say extend _ and i have no clue who___ is or I heard a different name, that’s going to be a problem. I also ask that you read most or your theory arguments at a slower pace, if it’s just going to be analytics. I will say clear.

Extensions: In order for me to vote on an argument it has to be clearly extended, and explained, to the point at which i can justify my decision, by explaining the argument you won. However. if there is something like a completely conceded PTX DA, then you don't have to go over every single card in it, simply explaining it for about 10-20 seconds is sufficient.

Theory/T: I guess I default to competing interps and drop the arg, but if you can win something else, then that’s good too. The only time I will actually stick with my defaults is when both debaters are having a theory debate and don't make any args for Reasonability or CI or the implications. You can use Theory as a strategic tool, and read a bunch of friv args, if you have Nuanced standards and voters that will prob get you higher speaks (no advocacy skills is not nuanced.) I don't think RVIs make too much logical sense, but if 3 theory shells are read in the 1nc, then I’m pretty sympathetic to an RVI for the Aff.

Larpy stuff: Yea sure go ahead. Just make sure if you have a Plan/CP text you read it slowly so i know what you're advocating for.

Framework Debate: Heavy framework debate isn't really my forte. I’m familiar with most of the generic FWs, but if you’re a really a good Kant debater and think Korsgaard is Bae, than read it, I much rather listen to a good fw debate, then meh larping, or bad k debate. Also slow down on the tags and the analytical justifications, I’ve said this before, but this is especially key for these types of debates.

Tricks: Meh, ill vote on them, but keep in mind you’re not goanna get amazing speaks (at best a 29) if your 1AC is just extending random spikes that you had in between contentions. Also in order for me to vote on an argument it has 2 be warranted. Also, unless your spike has a clear implication in the constructive, I will accept responses to it, in the 2N. I will also logically check back arguments before voting on them, ie if you say presume Aff cause swag, and that’s conceded- that’s prob not a reason why I would affirm.

Critical Args: This is probably my most favorite type of debate. However even though I like hearing K debates, I hate hearing bad ones, so if it’s not your thing please don’t do it. I think I’m well acquainted with most of the ks read in debate, but if you're gonna read some really high theory args please slow down, and make sure you're explaining them in your first speech, if i dont know what a rhizome is after the 1ac that is a problem.

Misc:

-Don’t presume i know anything, that means you have to explain your arguments to me instead of just reading some cards.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">-Speaks are based on your strategy and a little bit on your performance, I average around a 28.5. The difference between a 29.5 and a 30 is how well you present yourself in round ie: a combination of sass, humor, clarity, and overall speaking.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">-If you want the highest possible speaks then do what you do best.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- I dont feel comfortable voting on unverifiable claims/intentions based on what someone did prior to the round.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- You should provide your opponent with a copy of whatever cards your reading during your speech if they ask, this can be done via a viewing computer, flashing, passing papers, etc.