Kumar,+Shikhar


 * This is pretty much copied from Luke Cumbee's philosophy, my high school coach **


 * Quick things **

I love to learn new things If you have any specific questions--feel free to ask No prep for flashing Include me in the e-mail chain/flash drive exchange Tag team CX is acceptable, but it doesn't score you any points In your last speech—go for arguments and never go for everything Clash matters -- do not run away from your opponent's arguments Student safety (mental and physical) comes first


 * Experience **

Debated policy 4 years in high school. I have a fair amount of experience in both circuit and traditional circles.


 * Good Debate **

Every time I update this it always seems to be me finding a new way to say this: "Do what you do best--and justify what you do." Generally speaking--this means making offensive arguments, supported by multiple warrants, effectively applied to the round--no matter your argument preference.


 * Theory (+Topicality) **

Higher threashold for theory than many--it generally requires a legitimate claim. I’ve voted on it before but it has to be developed and it has to dive deep into the standards. I generally default to competing interpretations unless convinced otherwise. Have offense against their interpretation and use the standards to prove substance to your theoretical objection. If you go for theory in any sense of the word, tell me whether it’s a reason to reject the team or argument and provide offense for that.

Also: 10 second theory shells deserve 10 second responses. Even if they are conceded--I would still probably default to reject the arg. If you want me to make your theory argument enough weight to make me ignore everything else in the debate and vote for you, then give it the time it deserves.

On conditionality: 1 is fine--2 is probably fine--3 is debateable--4 will be a fun/unique debate but probably not fine


 * Disadvantages **

Link story is usually the largest uphill battle, so you should probably have more than one link Specific links are good links Disad turns case is important Risk of uniqueness is a thing Link turns need uniqueness to be offense


 * Counterplans **

Not sure what else to say--CP's are strategic and should be used often. Ones that are specific to the aff are especially fun.


 * Kritiks + Performance + Clash of Civs + The only section you'll probably read **

Although everything is up for debate... I do have a strong belief in addressing the topic. Negative is required to address the affirmative... affirmative is required to address the topic.

I'm not sure why it's my place to tell you what you should and should not argue. I've had students who preferred to argue policy arguments and I have had students who preferred to argue performance (and everything in-between). As a coach, I could not imagine not having them on my team--nor could I imagine discouraging the passion they had in their arguments. I am a strong believer in this community; therefore, I am also a believer that we should not exlude entire types of arguments, nor any debater, nor any lifestyle, etc.

What that does not resolve, however, is how I evaluate these debates. A couple of thoughts on that... Good debate trumps my preferences. Justify what you do/why you win. Smart arguments are good arguments. Clash is always a priority. Offensive arguments--well warranted--applied to the debate's nexus question.

This was intentionally vague: if you have a specific question feel free to ask.


 * Framework **

FYI: these are stressful to judge--I generally default to offense/defense and vote for the team that did the best debating. Any shift from this framework usually requires a team who is doing the best debating anyway.

The direction I am moving is in favor of education. The last thing I want to do is have a student feel like they can't present their best strategy in front of me--I want to see you at your best. That being said--I do enjoy issue oriented debates more than Framework debates. I also have a general thought that it can be tough to do Framework debates well. I will also say that if you want to go the Framework route, you really need to develop the arguments well (simply saying the word education is not convincing)