Reddy,+Sharath

UC Berkeley '16 Mira Loma HS '12

I competed in Public Forum and Extemporaneous primarily; I also competed in LD a few times.

In general: Don't //spread// (but you can talk fast), be clear in presenting ideas. I go off the flow, so be sure to hit __all__ the points your opponent brings up. I'll attempt to be a //tabula rasa// judge.

For LD: Clearly link all of your points to your value and criterion, and solidify how the criterion you choose comes back to your value. Basically, make all links clear to me, between evidence, value, and criterion. Your goal should be to show that the resolution should be generally affirmed or negated as //a principle//. This means that you must extend proof (analysis, empirical examples, statistical data) that would convince someone of the viability of the resolution.

For public forum, evidence is key for me; dont just use your own analysis, have something to back it up.

For parliamentary, I'll buy anything you say as long as you convince me its true, and your opponent doesn't refute it.

Overall, I'll vote for the person who I feel has stronger (unrefuted) points. Back up claims with evidence, and speak clearly.

(I don't judge policy, so, please dont use K's, topicality, etc. in public forum/parli/LD rounds)