Pothamsetty,+Navya

Updated: 1/17

I debated 4 years on the local and national circuit for Lake Highland Prep, graduating in 2016

Conflicts: Lake Highland

I’ll vote for whoever wins on the flow- to minimize intervention, arguments should be explicitly compared, weighed, and extended. Additionally, although I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments, if an argument is important, more emphasis/explanation should be given. Preclusion and internal link arguments should be explicitly warranted in order to make the debate easier to evaluate.

I’ll weigh arguments based on the paradigm presented to me in the round. Run what you are most comfortable with. As a default, I assume the resolution functions as a statement that the aff has to prove true and the neg has to prove false. If there is uncertainty as to which paradigm offense is to be evaluated in, I’ll do my best to adopt assumptions made by both debaters.


 * Theory**: Competing Interps is my default, but make sure you state whether the violation results in dropping the arg/debater; to minimize intervention, I don’t default one or the other coming into the round. Additionally, I’ll be receptive to any abuse story- frivolous theory included.


 * Ks**: I’m not familiar with most K literature, so slow down and explain arguments/how they interact in the bigger picture of the round. It should be clear to me how to evaluate offense under the ROTB/ROTJ (this goes for normative FWs too).

I can flow speed and will say clear/slow as many times as needed but it will help to start off slowly and slow down for interps/anything else that should be flowed verbatim.

High speaks for clever arguments, efficiency and overall strategy.


 * TL;DR**- In order to minimize intervention, I'll vote on any argument as long as it is warranted and I understand that warrant.

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask me before the round.