Archie,+Raja

Hi! I'm Raja Archie :)

**__My Background__**: __My Judging History: __ []
 * Policy debater from 8th-12th grade (CDL & NatCirc)
 * I graduated from ETHS (in Evanston, IL..where a little school called Northwestern is located) in 2016, after graduating I judged mostly Varsity Policy but I’ve been judging since my Junior year of HS
 * I currently coach Congress & Policy at ETHS

__My Philosophy:__ I don’t believe in telling debaters how they should debate, my job as a judge is to decided who did the better debating at the end of the round. That being said I can judge every type of team. I’m a Tabula Rasa type of Judge, which means I enter rounds as a blank slate and I expect debaters to tell me what I should vote on.

**For Debaters**: I’m an extremely K friendly judge, and a former flex debater. Which means I welcome teams who run more philosophical arguments centered around Postmodernism (//Baudrillard, Bataille, etc.//), Existentialism (//Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc.//), as well as Pre- & Post- Structuralism (//Lacan, Marx, Foucault, Deleuze, etc//.). In addition teams who run more identity centered arguments like Feminism, Blackness (//Antiblackness/Wilderson, Black Fem, etc.//) and Queer Theory. ***I included this because judge pools vary and I want to make sure everyone has the best experience possible**

__Speech:__ When it comes to speaking, I’ve been able to flow exceptionally well since my Novice year, that being said speed isn’t an issue for me at all. I will say that clarity is extremely important, so if I’m judging you try to spread clearly, announciation is important (try not to speak directly into your laptop or chew your words when speaking..especially in those big echoey classrooms), and be loud (you don’t have to scream at me, but don’t suddenly start whispering after you read your tag).

No matter what type of debater you are, I won’t do any work for you. Even though I’m a judge who can understand your high theory arguments, and Kritiks I expect you to debate as if I’m not. Don’t take my experience as a reason to be lazy, you should be exposing your arguments as if I’m an extremely traditional Policy judge. It’s easy to read cards, and cite authors but its within the explaination and breakdown of your arguments where your intelligence truly shines, it shows that you aren’t only great at reading but are a phenomenal critical thinker as well (which is important in debate, if it wasn’t it wouldn’t be a standard in some folks T shells)

My rounds are a safe places. Which means you are required to respect preferred pronouns (if you don’t know them, ask each other before the round starts and don’t use gendered language), and anything homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc. isn‘t tolerated in my rounds and I will vote you down if such things are said. I understand that everyone comes from different places, backgrounds, and experiences but ignorance doesn’t serve as a pardon for things that are blatantly offensive, I am completely willing to have a conversation after rounds with teams who are willing, with the intent to educate not reprimand. Essentially just don’t be a shitty human.

I also have a paradigm on Tabroom that essentially says the same thing as what’s above
 * __My e-mail:__ rrarchie98@gmail.com**

[]