Dasarathy,+Anirudh

I debated for four years at the Hawken School in Gates Mills, OH and am currently a student at Princeton University. I traveled sporadically my sophomore and junior years on the national circuit, and won the Ohio State Championship and tied for 11th at the NFL national tournament my senior year.

Tldr; I am tab, and will vote on any argument that is warranted.

My preferences are below. All of these are just what I default to - you can make arguments as to why I should adopt a different paradigm.


 * Speaking:** I'm fine with whatever style you are used to, whether it be slow or fast; I would prefer you slow down on taglines and card authors. I'll yell clear if you're being unclear.


 * Framework:** Fine with anything.


 * Theory:** I am fine with people running theory and topicality, but I do wish that debaters make clear violations and also clear internal links between the standards/reasons to prefer and the voters. I don't default to any specific paradigm (competing-interps/reasonability), nor do I assume whether theory is or is not an RVI. I would prefer that arguments regarding these two would be in the shell that is read. I prefer developed theory shells. Please don't make me vote on a 15 second underdeveloped theory shell that becomes 3 minutes in the 2AR. I like debaters who weigh between theory standards.


 * A Prioris:** If you are going to run a prioris, please establish clearly why they are a prioris, and why they come before other substantive arguments.


 * Critical Arguments:** I actually really enjoy good kritiks but the key word is "good." I find that the vast majority of Ks are philosophically incoherent and hide behind obscurantist philosophers. That being said, if the K debate is a good one, you will be rewarded with speaker points.


 * CX:** Please be nice in cross-examination. This isn't really a high threshold for me, but if you are insulting your opponent or demeaning them for not understanding an argument, then your speaks will suffer.


 * Extensions**: I give the AFF lee-way on extensions due to the time crunch in the 1AR, but the extensions cannot just be "Extend Foucault 2", but must re-explain the warrant and the impact to the round, so I would prefer if you said "Extend Foucault 2, which says [insert here]. This takes out [insert here]".


 * Weighing:** I think new weighing in the 2AR is permissible, provided the arguments that are being weighed are extended well. NR weighing is key.


 * Policy Arguments**: These are fine. I have explained Ks above under "Critical Arguments." Plans, Counterplans, and Disads are fine.


 * Speaker Points:** I aim towards an average of 27.5 speaker points, with a standard deviation of about 1.75 points.


 * Performances**: Fine with me although please make it clear what the role of my ballot is.


 * Miscellaneous:** I will try my best to vote on the path of least intervention. Win a clear link story to win the round. If there are any questions, please feel free to ask me before the round. I don't like people who are overly mean or condescending to their opponent. It won't cost you the ballot, but your speaks may suffer. I will disclose my RFD and will disclose speaks upon request.