Reddy,+Varun

Varun Reddy School: Wake Forest 2015-2019 Experience: 6 Years Policy Debate High School: Westwood High School

Heroes: Jeremy Martin, Nicholas Burr, Micheal Stroud, Michael Hart Hello, I like debate and believe its a place to be competitive have fun. You do you, but do it well. Nothing will bore me more than listening to four google translate robots debating for two hours. I like k debate but i am amenable to all things. Seldom do I try to assert my own ideological bias's(even though some what inevitable) into a debate.

**T** I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise specified. The only real standard on T is limits and I therefore will filter much of 2ac offense as well as 2nc explanations of the violation through that lens. When going for this argument it would help to treat T very much like a disad and having clear articulations of the distinctions you make between the definitions you have read and framing arguements to tell me how to evaluate them. I think that T is under utilized and if done well is cool. When debating T having reasons to justify modest forms of unpredictability, why extra T is good etc as ways generate offense on the limits debate. Similarly, specific examples of ground lost and smart distinctions between good and bad ground will help section of this debate for me. Nuance is key. I am a good flow but im going to be honest....if u lose me i will make face [:(

**CPs** Pretty neat. These are fun arguements all counter-plans are theoretically suspect but that's on you to explain. Explain why the counterplan solves at least some or all of the aff, that is important. Slow down on the text of the counterplan so I can catch it. Cheater counterplans are dope and can be great debates. Have a clearly articulated net benefit. Theory alone is insufficient to beat the counterplan i think u probably need a solvency deficit and at least a reason why the cp doesn't solve the internal link to the aff.

**K** I am more than comfortable. The kritik doesn't need an alt but have to explain why the links **in**dependently internal link turn the affirmative or why they outweigh the case. I think the negative should at least explain the political strategy of the alternative unless part of the argument is to not. I am not persuaded by aff teams holding alternatives to the text of the alternative, or really the fw part of this debate. You obvi.gov get to weight the aff, but if it's a reps debate u better have reps offense and not just say case outweighs. Good k debates are won with specific link explanations and sectioned of alt stories. It would behoove you to spend some time on the alt rather than reading a large number of links because i think these debates are usually underdeveloped. I am highly persuaded by the aff team that spends good time on the permutation and has some good link defense and a link turn than the slew of link cards you read in the block that neither answers nor clashes with the method/solvency mechanism of the aff. Make good choices and I will reward. Floating PIKS: Can be legitimate but logically should make sense if the alt is a process not a telos sure thing, but if you say reject the aff and then in the 2NC are like "hah got eeem". I will leave the room and go to Chipotle immediatly.

**FW** Increasingly I think framework is probably somewhat true but not in the traditional limits sense, like wise people do not innovate with this argument at all. Granted I only ever debated one side of this argument and something I think is necessary when debating framework is both an interpretation for debate that at least is functionally limiting if you are aff or explains why you defend the TOPIC vs the RESOLUTION and a justification for why your education that you provide is more important than the unfair or potentially unlimiting model of debate you advocate. Make sure if you are aff that your FW 2ac is specific and not just the Antonio card and a few roleplaying bad cards and call it a day. That will make me grumpy. The thesis of your aff should be strong enough and explained in the context of fw to do alot of work for you dont read generic stuff explain your aff.

Negative, Have a competing interps argument. Explain why the form of the affirmative is more important than the content in terms of debatability and if the discussion was not a productive one and how your interpretation of debate as a simulation meant to immitate policy making solves that offense. Secondly, Have strong explanations for why limits and jurisdictional constraints on debate are important to preserving the game. People sort of skip over this part and I think it would be helpful. Do not just regurgitate teh stein-berg and freeley warrants. "Debate should be about controversy blah blah blah" What is that controversy? What should it be? K teams are so shitty at justifying why their method or k's of fw meets the requirements or is tailored to the question of what debate is meant to facilitate and I think you can capitalize here. If you make pragmatism arguments, do not just read state good cards make them contextual to the method, what can the usfg do to engage in that process of criticism that is encapsulated by a policy. Ya feel? <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Cool

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**DA'S** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Good Disad debates are good. I am of the opinion the politics disad are maybe suspect in the conjunction of link and internal link chains, that said framing arguements on this flow are important for me. Justifications for probability, magnitude, and time frame can really make or break alot of these close debates and I think spinning link and uniqueness questions is good.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Concluding Notes(Must Read :P)** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I liked debating both policy and kritikal positions pretty technically and while at least some form of organization is good, i think this notion of tech>truth or truth > tech is silly. Technically concessions are inevitable and important but must be impacted out. I think making good arguments with a warrant or a few and hte impacts that has for the debate writ large is more important than covering a page. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Similarly, Offense/Defense paradigms are not something I believe in debate ability for me is more important than pre-conceived notions of how debate should work. If you defend the wall and make the args good for you, if you don't cool. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Debate is TOO SERIOUS, ask your opponent their names, enjoy yourself, laugh, eat, do not siphon your creative potential in favor of being the debater you think you should be. More important than your team code is your personhood and thoughts being channeled through the arguements you make. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**My CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON DEBATE** >[|My Philosophy] <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;"> GL HF
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> I WILL NOT READ ALL YOUR CARDS U DO THE WORK DEBATE IS ARGUMENTS NOT FACTS IN ARTICLES **