Vora,+Sonia

I debated for the Annie Wright School in Tacoma, WA for four years, received an at-large to the 2010 TOC and qualified for the 2011 TOC. I debated both locally and nationally.

For the vast majority of rounds, my paradigm should be pretty irrelevant and is pretty standard for the national circuit I would think. I try to be as tab as possible but I have preferences and if you depart from them substantially you do so at your own risk: which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I am **extremely** open to changing my opinions or defaults in round based on the arguments made and actually appreciate and reward arguments which tell me how to approach the round. But in the case of two competing claims with no comparison and no extended warrants, I'll just pick whichever argument I think is more true or default to the following preferences so don't make the round come down to this. I will also err aff in these situations. The short version is that I prefer to evaluate debates in a modified version of "comparative worlds" which doesn't mean I exclude non-consequential positions. I default to competing interpretations on theory but please please please establish the paradigm in round even if it's just with one line. I will also probably tank your speaks if you run theory with very marginal in-round repercussions though I will evaluate these arguments under competing interpretations obviously. I will be unhappy about fairness is not a voter arguments and tend to think there will probably be a risk of offense towards the fairness voter. I will evaluate skepticism and other truth-testy positions but I won't be happy about it and you may be opening yourself up to a weird decision and a sympathetic ear to theory. I am fairly picky about extensions containing warrants and am very receptive to meta-analysis telling me I ought discount arguments that aren't extended sufficiently. I think there is such a thing as terminal defense but normal defense is typically just mislabeled as terminal defense, which leaves a risk of offense.

I would say I was a kritikal debater my junior year and extremely stock my senior year. I think that good stock debate is incredibly impressive. I am very annoyed by evidence and philosophical/kritikal argumentation which presumes prior knowledge or a knowledge of the author's works because I probably honestly don't have the base knowledge; accordingly, I'll be really impressed by debaters who point out the difference between arguments read in round and the arguments that an author or an opponent presumes are true. I also think a lot of K literature is so inaccessible and relies so much on prior knowledge that its ridiculous for a debate round, so just because I like some Ks doesn't mean you ought whip out your position which you wouldn't understand if it was read against you. I don't understand what you say the first time I will not vote on it and my threshold isn't too high. My speed tolerance was high as a debater but has probably gone down since the season ended, so just be wary. I was also never the best flower so be warned. I'll reward clear and fast reading. I really enjoy very thorough evidence comparison debates. I do not like to evaluate evidence based on the arguments or quality of the card on paper but I will heavily reward and defer to arguments which "spin" and directly compare evidence, whether it's through the rhetoric of the evidence or the source, on different metrics in round.

If you don't weigh, your speaks will tank. I will reward joking in round as long as it's friendly. If you are mean, your speaks will tank. I am very open to presume affirmative arguments and RVIs, but I presume negative in the case where there is some sort of competing extensions which make the round impossible to resolve. I will be unhappy if arguments are based on out of round behavior when the violation is contestable and if it doesn't have an actual real in-round impact. However, I am of the opinion that running a hyper-specific plan does probably necessitate disclosure and am fairly sympathetic to arguments in this vein within reason. I probably average 27.5 and allocate speaks based on how good you are compared to the rest of the pool, with about one 30 per tournament.