Koneru,+Neeraja

DEBATE BACKGROUND: - 7 years debating experience (4 @ Westwood HS in Austin, 3rd year debating at the University of Texas) - coach SFA HS and taught at camp this summer so I’m knowledgeable about the topic - judged apprx 30-40 debates on the topic

I believe debate is a game and will not make a good judge for teams wanting to further a political or personal movement in the round. I would prefer to watch debates where the affirmative defends a plan grounded in the resolution.

“defaults” easily persuaded otherwise--

TOPICALITY: Not a huge fan of T as a generic strategy but I do think it’s great when teams read specifically tailored violations. Comparative impact calculus about the standards is important—make arguments about how your standards capture theirs (limits k2 education etc). I think debate is a game so will likely default to competing interps unless told otherwise. Should reasonability become a part of the debate, affs have to win a link to “reasonability good” args—ie: WHY is the aff reasonable--- not just reasons why reasonability as a practice in the abstract is good

COUNTERPLANS: SLOW DOWN ON COUNTERPLAN TEXTS!!! competition theory largely up for debate—I err on the side of consult and conditions/ similarly competitive CPs are questionably competitive. Quantify solvency deficits—if CP only solves X amount what does that mean in terms of the impact. Offense Defense good/bad is a useful debate to have when debating CPs that probably solve the entire case

DISADS: Impact calc is a must and turns case arguments are persuasive. Zero risk of a DA is a thing—I think it is negative burden to prove the disad is true and not the aff’s burden to have evidence against a poorly constructed argument.

Smart analytic> bad evidence I will not read all of your evidence for you at the end of a debate. It’s your job to explain it in the debate

KRITIKS: Not very familiar with the literature so don’t get caught up in high theory/ jargon. Case specific impacts and alternative solvency args (ie root cause) are persuasive.

THEORY: PEN TIME IS KEY impacts are important. I often find reject the argument to be a persuasive argument. Conditionality becomes more persuasive when there are multiple conditional worlds—especially if there are inconsistencies

PAPERLESS: if prep stealing becomes excessive I will start to use prep to jump speeches. Have a copy of your speech on your partner’s computer while giving your speech.

-