Kapoor,+Neal

I debated 4 years on the national circuit for Lake Highland Prep School, graduating in 2016 and qualifying twice to the TOC. Conflicts: Scarsdale, Lake Highland, American Heritage DM, Oakwood AW

In general, I decide rounds based on the arguments presented by both debaters. I will evaluate all arguments equally underneath the paradigm presented to me within a round. I will only evaluate arguments on the flow, so I will favor arguments that have explicit comparison over embedded clash in order to minimize intervention. I won't arbitrarily exclude any argumentation, so run what you're best at.

I assume the resolution functions as a statement that the affirmative must prove true and the negative must prove false. What it means to be “true” or “false” can be determined via a role of the ballot, ethical framework, or some other evaluative mechanism. This does not mean that I won’t vote off positions that aren’t germane to the resolution.

I default competing interpretations over reasonability, but I don't default drop the debater or drop the argument, or that fairness/education are or are not voters because I don't believe I have the jurisdiction to vote off an argument not made within a round.

Lastly, I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments. However, the more important the argument, the more explanation should be given to minimize misunderstandings.