Sohoni,+Meghna

Debated for 4 years at Wayzata High School University of Minnesota Coach at Wayzata High School

General-Go for whatever arguments you want to and I will evaluate it. Don’t spend your time worrying about what I will and won’t like but focus on developing your arguments well and impacting them. It is always important to explain and impact arguments so I have a way to evaluate the round. Make sure impact comparisons are specific and established early in the debate. I also give more weight to explanation of arguments than interpreting the evidence for myself.

Topicality-I generally default to competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise. Each side needs to impact their standards and do comparative impact work. I am more persuaded by limits arguments so it would be useful to frame the debate in terms of that.

Disads-They are great. Make sure to do specific impact calculus and turns case arguments. The more specific the disad is to the case, the better.

Cps-Are also great. They should solve a large portion of the affirmative. Comparative impact work between solvency deficits and net benefits need to be done.

Kritiks-Not as familiar with the literature so make sure to be very clear and have good explanations of the K in relation to the case, specificity is critical. Link work should be specific to the case and there should be a clear articulation of the alt and how it functions.

Theory-Make sure to slow down and be clear. You need to prove abuse in the round and then have good impact comparisons. I think two conditional advocacies are fine but can be persuaded otherwise. Also be sure to articulate why it is a reason to reject the team and not the argument or the other way around for the neg. Most of the time “reject the argument” and not the team solves all your offense.

Make sure to use cross-ex strategically. I’ll reward more speaker points with good cross-exs. Have fun and be nice!