Krishnamurthy,+Priyanka

Coppell HS '11 Emory University '15 Constraints: Coppell, Westminster

I debated policy for four years at Coppell HS (hollla Rubaie/ G-Ferg). I am currently a second year at Emory and I do not debate in college. General: I find some arguments more persuasive than others. For example, I would rather watch a very specific DA/case debate than a cap K debate that is stemmed off of generic links/ impacts. Specific debates are the best kinds of debate. I think a neg argument that indicts aff evidence (like a CP that's cut from the 1ac/ a 1AC author concluding negative) is super persuasive and shows that the neg has done its research. I also think impact calculus is THE MOST important thing in debate. That goes not only for DAs/ Ks but theoretical questions and Topicality. Though I like more policy-based arguments, I went for the K a lot in HS so I enjoy these debates as well. Just because I find a policy framework more persuasive than a critical one does not mean I cannot be persuaded otherwise; it all really depends on the debate. Furthermore, I think a dropped argument is a true one. That being said, when an argument is dropped the other side MUST impact it/ tell me the implication of it being dropped.

T- I do not know the topic super well (I have judged at 2-3 tournaments so far this year) so please take the extra minute (by both sides) to explain the interpretation/ counter-interpretation. I'm not sure if I have said this but limits should be the standard that the 2NR goes for (it is the internal link to all other impacts in terms of T).

Theory- conditionality and dispositionality are basically the same thing and are both good. Multiple conditional worlds are generally good unless they force the 2AC into a double-bind that can be strategically conceded by the neg to win the debate (the aff should go for theory if this happens on a large scale). I think 2NC Cps are sweet when answering add-ons, as are amendment Cps. I think process Cps/agent Cps are okay (I went for these enough to realize how silly they can be). QPQ Cps are great when the solvency advocate says what it needs to. Perm theory is NOT a reason to reject the team, neither is "floating PIKs bad."

DAs/Cps- Love them. Especially when they are hyper-specific and the CP has a good solvency advocate. I also am a huge fan of PICs, especially if the CP PICs out of part of the plan text. Discursive based PICs also turn me on. I just really like PICs. See theory for more details.

K- I am decently versed in this kind of literature. Though I went for the K a lot in HS/ always read systemic-impact based affs, this does not mean I have a bias for/against the K. I think framework is an integral part of the K debate. To me, if the negative wins the framework debate and the aff has no offence against the L/Impact portion of the K, the neg probably wins. Affs should go for very specific offense that is relavent to their aff (i.e. an offensive reason as to why constructing China as a threat is good). DO NOT FORGET TO IMPACT YOUR ARGUMENTS. Floating PIKs do not turn me on :( It is very possible to win turns case arguments that make going for the alt solving case look inane. As a negative team, you should know never to make your speeches solely buzzwords. Explain the links/ impacts and how the alternative functions. Tell me how to view the debate. Aff, same goes for you. OVERVIEWS AT THE TOP OF Ks THAT ARE LONGER THAN 3 FINGERS SHOULD NOT EXIST.

Performance debates- I have never judged these; however, I have debated these. I do not think framework is a great option for the neg, as it is is better, at least when judging, for the neg to engage in the performace. It makes for better education and makes it more enjoyable to judge. That being said, framework is definitely a winnable argument, it obviously just depends on how it is debated in the round.

Debate should be about having fun. If you tell a joke that makes me laugh then you're doing something right. Don't be mean to one another; there's a difference between being aggressive and being a jerk. If you clip cards and I can tell, you lose the debate.

For a more specific paradigm just ask before the debate.