Tanwani,+Kunal

I debated for Kempner High School and did LD and Policy debate. Qualified for TFA State in Policy and broke at some bid tournaments in LD. I now attend the University of Texas at Austin.

Short Version: I don't care about what you do just be coherent and efficient. I'll vote off anything as long as you give me a reason to do so. Speed is fine. Analysis is important.

Pref Shortcut Framework/Phil: 2-3 LARP: 1 K: 2-3 Tricks: 2-3 Theory: 4

Long Version for you people who really care:


 * Speed ** : If you want to go fast, start slow then gradually get faster so i can become accustomed to your speed. Slow down on tags/authors/theory interps.

**Framework/Phil**: I wasn't really a phil debater. Please explain whatever you read well so I can understand it.


 * K: ** I know basic K lit. If it is something complicated please explain it very well. Have some framing mechanism or at least show how the K interacts with the other arguments in the round.


 * K Affs/Performances ** : Go for it.


 * Tricks: ** Go for it. I didn't really read these but some people from my school did.


 * Larp: ** This is mostly what I did. I am totally cool with Plans/CPs/DAs. Make weighing arguments obviously.


 * Topicality/Theory: ** If you read T you should probably give a topical version of the aff. I have a high threshold for theory used, but I do know that it is a legitimate strategy used in debate rounds often. That being said, please make sure there is actual abuse occurring in the round otherwise I will be disappointed. If the theory flow is too messy for my evaluation, I will most likely make a bad decision on theory. I default to whatever you tell me to. I don't have a stance on RVIs so I'll evaluate whatever you want me to. Don't read frivolous theory, also I do not care for disclosure that much unless the abuse story is very compelling.


 * Misc:** If the round is really funny you'll get higher speaks