Shanker,+Kripa

- 6 years policy debate at Homestead (2 middle school, 4 high school at V4 level) - First Year Coach Homestead Debate - Currently Debating for Marquette University (NPDA)
 * __Name:__** Kripa Shanker
 * __School:__** Homestead High School
 * __Experience:__**
 * __Biased Towards:__** Homestead
 * __Rate of Communication:__** It is my strong belief that //there is no correlation between rate of speaking and ability to debate//. Granted, //I can flow and follow speed// as long as one is not panting for air between words and every syllable is pronounced.
 * __Topicality:__** Whether us judges like it or not topicality has become a part of debate and subsequently a voting issue. That is, I will listen to the argument and have to floe it if it goes unanswered and the Negatives bring that up. Otherwise, //any good T answer that goes only contested by a basic T violation will flow Affirmative unless the Negative team vividly shows that the Affirmative is non-topical.//
 * __Counter Plans:__** I will listen to //non-topical// counter plans and theory on the counter plans including conditionality as long as there are good arguments to back the theory. This however assumes that the ones who run the counter plan know what a counter plan really is, a test of the 1AC.
 * __Kritiks:__** As a philosophy major I will listen to all K as long as the student actually understands what they are saying. For instance, if a debater claims to have understood __Being and Time__ on their first read, I will doubt it.
 * __Theory:__** I will listen and flow theory as long the teams that argue theory actually understand what it is that they are saying as opposed to simply reading a theory file with no comprehension of their advocacy.
 * __Overall*:__** I am a Tabs judge; that is, I advocate the notion of tabula rasa. This, beyond the literal translation, has an implied advocacy or enthymeme about my judging. What that means is that, like John Locke himself, I will follow enlightenment thinking (unless a K changes my mind) including the notion that //logic and persuasion are key//. //If a debater can use the opposition's logic in turning their arguments, than that is a job well done//. In weighing things, the more the debaters try to convince me, the better. The best debates are the ones where the debater makes logical arguments, understands the implications of what they are saying, and manages to refute their opposition. As a debater, I understand the value of a fair judge and highly appreciate them myself when debating. Subsequently, //I will be as fair as possible//.