Srinivasan,+Divya


 * Background: **

I debated LD Varsity at Thomas Jefferson HS for Science and Tech for 3 years and have judged for 1.5 years in Varsity and JV rounds. I enjoy progressive rounds with nuanced arguments.

**Speaker Points:**

30: The best of the best.

26-28: General range; 28 or above means you are truly par excellence

24-25: Rude behavior, Inadequate arguments

15 and below: Egregious mistakes or an ethics violation (perjury, etc.)


 * Determination of the round: **

When choosing the winner of the round, I look to the following components of the round to determine my vote:

>
 * 1) ** Development of Arguments: ** How well developed your framework and explanations are for your stance. I will only vote for positions that are clear and well-constructed. Comparative analysis will help you in this case. Do not think speed will compensate for clarity in this case; the logic of your arguments is of utmost importance.
 * 2) ** Rebuttals: ** Rebuttals should be targeted, well-articulated, and cover your opponent’s case effectively. This is as crucial to me as the construction of your case. I also am a stickler for proper technique in rebuttals and it will not help you to introduce cards in your last speeches or mention arguments that do not exist in the flow.
 * 3) ** Communication Style: ** Ultimately debate is an oratorical competition and your diction, presentation style, and intonation/emphasis are critical. Higher speaks for those debaters who exhibit strong communication.
 * 4) ** General Technique/Cross-Ex: ** Every minute of the debate counts, and although cross-ex isn’t really a “prominent feature” of the round, I am always impressed by a good, strategic debater. Clever cross-ex questions that lead to outstanding arguments/turns/rebuttals later on in the round yield higher speaks in my book.

**Ideal strategies:**

1. Topic DA & Advantage CP 2. Case turns and case defense. 3. 1-off Specific Critique 4. Theory 5. Framework Debate


 * Preferences that I align with that were advocated for by other judges: **

“I enjoy elegance, creativity, and intelligence. I don't so much enjoy brute force, trickery, or obfuscation. If your argument requires the other team to drop something in order for you to __ win __, I'll probably think it's stupid. If your argument requires the other team to be confused about something in order for you to win, I'll probably think it's stupid. On the other hand, if your argument engages with the other team at a fundamental level, I'll probably think it's good—even if its "weird" or counter-intuitive. If it's creative, even better.”~Bill Batterman

“It is the burden of the team advancing the argument to both explain their position and prove that it is correct. The affirmative needs to win their advantages; the negative needs to win their DA.” ~ Karthik Srinivasan

CPs: The alternative of the CP should be textually & functionally competitive and lead to a solid debate. Greater difference between PIC and the plan will be in your favor.

“You need a solvency advocate for your counterplan. What’s a solvency advocate? Different people might have different standards, but I think it’s reasonable to have one that’s comparable to the solvency advocate for the affirmative.” ~ David Heidt

I am fine with speed as long as it does NOT compromise clarity or logic of your argument. I strongly discourage spreading in a way that is highly unreasonable and impossible for your opponent to defend against. Debate, from my perspective, is equal parts communicative prowess and logical reasoning so do not sacrifice one for the other.
 * Speed: Comfortable with fast speed, but do not advocate it as a replacement for sound logic. **