Sharma,+Priya

- Current senior at Alpharetta High School in Georgia - I was a 2N for three years and switched to a 2A this year. - Have fun, be nice, and be respectful – hostility will not be tolerated – keep in mind that there is a fine line between being aggressive/sassy and being rude. - Tech over truth – a dropped argument is a true argument but warranted explanation is still key. - Well researched, aff specific strategies will be rewarded – I love in depth case debates. - Debate is still a performance based activity – be engaging, clear, technical, and smart. - Evidence comparison, specificity, and framing are key – if you know you’re losing on a certain part of the debate explain to me why that doesn’t matter and where you can still get my ballot. - I don’t like to call for too many cards – if the card isn’t explained in the debate then I do not think that it is my burden to do the work for the team. - In the end do what you do best! My judge philosophy is just a frame of reference but you should run arguments that you are comfortable with. - If you have any additional questions, please ask me before the round. - I value clarity over anything else – don’t sacrifice making arguments for the sake of going fast – please be slower on theory arguments. - Having a connection moment in the rebuttals where you make eye contact, slow down, and emphasize key points will be rewarded. - The more explanation and framing, the higher the speaker points. - Good cross ex’s will be rewarded. - I will adapt to the pool when considering speaker points. - Be yourself – make jokes if you’re funny (those relating to people on my team are awesome) and if you’re not, do what you do best. - An in-depth case debate is my favorite – teams that take the time to put together case specific strategies, recut 1AC cards, have specific internal link turns, etc. will be rewarded. - I’m always down for a well-executed impact or case turn debate – try to keep these as organized as possible because they do tend to get messy. - My favorite strategy is one that involves a good DA, especially a quality case specific one. - I love politics – a large majority of my 2NRs (past few years) and 1NRs (this year) have been the politics DA so I’m definitely ready to hear this kind of debate but at the same time I think this DA does have its major flaws – aff teams should point these out. - Link controls the direction of the DA, but I can definitely be persuaded otherwise. - Please do good turns case and impact analysis - Another strategy I love. - CPs must be textually and functionally competitive. - Solvency deficits need to be impacted and well explained for me to vote on them. - Sufficiency vs. necessity framing needs to be warranted. - Usually aff leaning on theory on cheating CPs but can be persuaded otherwise. - Not my favorite argument but I will definitely vote on them if executed well. - SPECIFICITY is key – have link analysis specific to the aff, explain to me what happens in the world of the alternative, etc. - I’m pretty familiar with generic K’s but am not very well versed in most K literature so please focus on explanation if running a K in front of me. - Please don’t have unnecessarily long overviews. - If you are aff vs the K, I generally believe that the weakest part of the K is the alternative – do with that what you will. - FW’s that attempt to exclude K’s are not persuasive to me. - Not my favorite, but I will definitely vote for them – my go-to disposition is that the aff needs to defend something. - On the neg, I find FW to be persuasive but it needs to be contextualized and impacted – have topical versions of the aff. - On the aff, I need to have a clear explanation of what the aff does and why your discourse, performance, etc. is key in or out of the round. - I’m willing to vote on theory but theory arguments have to be impacted – I don’t want to just hear a 5 second blippy extension that includes the words fairness and education. - I will default to reject the argument not the team so it’s your job to convince me otherwise. - Over two condo can make for a persuasive aff conditionality argument. - I love good t violations – the more specific, the better. - In order to get my vote, the neg team needs to do in depth explanation of their impacts – treat T like you would a DA. - Specificity is key in these debates – the neg team should have a specific case list and examples of how the aff explodes limits. - I default to competing interpretations if no one makes an argument on how I should frame the T debate. - On the aff, make sure you have offense – aff teams that have good interpretation evidence and impact their offense well will be in a good position. - I won’t take prep for flashing unless you are being extremely unreasonable about it. - Don’t steal prep – you will be punished for doing so. - Clipping/cross reading will not be tolerated and will result in very low speaker points/a loss. - If you show me your flows after the debate, I will give you +0.2 speaker points if they are good.
 * Priya Sharma**
 * __Background –__**
 * __Overview –__**
 * __Speaker Points –__**
 * __Case –__**
 * __DAs –__**
 * __CPs –__**
 * __Kritiks –__**
 * __Planless Affs -__**
 * __Theory –__**
 * __Topicality –__**
 * __Random -__**