Sinha,+Vivek


 * Experiance: TOC Bid Grapevine, Strake round robin, Bellaire round robin invitee, TFA State Quarter finalist, 2 Time state qualifier, NSDA East Texas Finalist in extemporaneous speaking NSDA East Texas PF 1st alternate. UH, UT, Bellaire, out round competitor. **


 * PF: ** Speed: I can handle speed. I’d much prefer no spreading and no monotonous droning, and instead some nice medium.

Framework: I guarantee you that 99% of frameworks in PF are insignificant and boil down to “cost-benefit analysis”. Don’t waste your time unless the framework actually draws some significant delineation on offense in the round. You’ll also be wasting my time if you tell me to use a “cost-benefit analysis”, which is a bit absurd if you think about it. Yes, I should evaluate costs and benefits; that’s not a framework. I also debate post-fiat so please don't waste time trying to debate about the feasibility of the policy itself.

Plans/Counterplans: I'm fine with them. I think they're a logical consequence of debating the resolution, as most "progressive" off-cases are. That also means that you should have the logical components of your plan/counterplan and be able to explain them sufficiently. That being said, I find hyper-specific advocacies, specifically intended to be dodgy offense, to be a bit dubious.

Other: The core of debating is weighing arguments and impacts. The earlier you weigh (preferably summary), the better. If your partner drops/forgets to extend an argument, sucks to suck; find a better partner, or find a better argument to win with. A sad conclusion I’ve drawn after transitioning to PF is that most teams don’t know how to weigh, the metaphorical “two ships passing in the night”. If you don’t weigh, you only have yourself to blame for a loss or “wrong” decision. Also, I find crossfire pretty pointless to a certain extent, but if anything important occurs, I’ll catch it and you should explain the implications in some rebuttal.