Talluri,+Kiran

Kiran Talluri CHHS Dartmouth College

Its been awhile since I've debated and the activity has changed, but keep this in mind:

Also, note that none of the following is absolute, I can usually be persuaded by a good advocate: T: If you don't have a plan strike me. If you are just now reading this before the round, I will give you a sheet of paper should you suddenly feel the need to write one down. If you have a plan, read on. I find myself voting negative on topicality due to affirmatives conceding weighing arguments (i.e. 'always accept the most limiting interpretation.'). This reflects the fact that I value highly attempts to establish criteria by which I should evaluate T. That being said, I generally favor interpretations that ensure fairness, a decent competitive balance, over education and crap like that. The affirmative (and negative) should construct an interpretation of the topic and defend it, rather than focusing on rhetorical sleight of hand, such as "lit checks". Outline the cases you allow and disallow and make some cogent arguments as to why this breadth is desirable in order to get my ballot. I am fairly biased to T bc its the first tournament of the year and T debates require less work than weighing disad or kritik evidence that i don't understand. Kritiks: I would label myself conservative with regard to kritickal argumentation, being disinclined to vote for kritiks that have no relation to the plan (Think discourse kritik, e.g. 'They said ecocide. Vote for us!') and very sympathetic to affirmative claims that the alternative is abusive due to its utopian and non-textual nature. I do vote negative on the K a fair amount, mostly due to technical errors on the part of the aff, which are, sadly, quite common. If you like to kritik on the aff, don't. Well, at least keep in mind that I am probably going to be voting for or against your plan, not against some 1NC impact card. DAs: I like these. Do try to elucidate why the affirmative is somehow unique, compared to other similar policies that (presumably) didn't cause the link. CPs: While you give up some kritik ground with me adjudicating, you gain the ability to run pretty much any and every counterplan you want. Some specifics for the aff and neg: 1. If the negative says "not a voting issue" at any time in the 2NC and 2NR to almost any theory argument, it isn't. 2. If will be a cold day in hell when the aff wins PICs bad, as long as the negative makes some attempt to answer it. 3. I am more easily persuaded that multi-actor fiar and multiple counterplans should be disallowed. General stuff: If I can't understand you, I will tell you. I try to base speaker points on how well you debated not on how well you talked. If I'm going to have to compare impacts, make weighing claims. This does not require an overview, but it doesn't hurt. No new arguments in the last rebuttals, but the 2AR must point out that the 2NR argument was new for me to dismiss it. I am very unlikely to assign an argument a probability of 0 or 1 unless it is conceded.