Charaniya,+Alizah

This is a summation of my paradigm, but if anything is unclear, don't hesitate to ask me before the round starts.

About me: I debated at Colleyville Heritage High School (CX my first year and LD for 3) and graduated in 2015. I started competing more on the national circuit my senior year. I now go to UT and judge in the Austin area.

Speed: I can understand most speeds as long as you're clear. I am a first year out, so don't go top speed and hope that I get everything down. The best thing to do is start slower so I can get accustomed to your voice and then speed up. Tag lines/Author names should be the most clear.

Speaks: A generally good speaker who is clear (doesn't need to be told clear more than once) will probably get a 28/28.5. If you want higher speaks here are some things I will look for: If you're passionate about your arguments, and I can tell, you will get higher speaks. This doesn't mean screaming at the top of your lungs, but just in general, it's about how you convey the argument and answer questions in CX. If you are particularly strategic, you will get higher speaks. If you give unique arguments that I haven't heard on the topic before (and are uncommon), you will get higher speaks. If you make me laugh thats always a good thing (speaks may or may not be influenced by this).

Framework: I think this is especially important, whatever form it may take. Framework gives me a lens to evaluate arguments, so either present me with a framework or link into your opponents (whichever works best for you). Value- not necessary but thats cool if you have one. Standards/Criteria/Burdens- should tell me how to weigh impacts (this is really important!!).

Theory: I didn't run much theory as a debater, but I did answer it a lot. Be clear on the interp/ counter-interp and don't make it frivolous. I generally default reasonability, but if you justify competing interps, I will evaluate it. I'm open to RVI's but the justification for them needs to be there. I like unique voters, so give me something other than fairness and education if you want a more compelling ballot story. If you need to call out abuse, it doesn't need to be in shell format, but you need to warrant why certain arguments are abusive.

Kritiks: LOVE THEM. Seriously, please run them in front of me. The only thing better than running a K is answering one, so if you're up against a K and you make smart arguments your speaker points will reflect it. Make sure the K links (there is nothing worse than a generic K against a pretty specific AC). If you're running something that is pretty dense, slow down and try to crystallize it as much as you can. Tell me why the K is a gateway issue to the Aff, or why the Aff links into one particularly. Also show solvency for the alternative. Kritical affirmatives are good too.

"Progressive" Arguments: Most people refer to DA's and CP's as "progressive," I view them as just arguments. I like them a lot, but if you run them, please run them right. For example, CP's need to be competitive, DA's need to be unique etc.

Some things in general: Don't be offensive. Don't assume things about your opponents private life (i.e. make comments on privilege, race, sexual orientation etc.) Don't force your opponent to disclose information about them that they don't want to. If you want someone to call you by your PGP, tell them (and me) before the round so that we can be respectful. Also, just ask the other person before. HAVE FUN and be nice to each other (but sass is good too).