Raghavan,+Srini

Short Version: I am a traditional judge that’s fairly new to the activity. I looked to persuasion over technical debate. Do not pref me very high if you want a circuit, progressive, policy type round.

Long version: I’m not likely to vote strictly off the flow. To quote Steven Tomasi “Just because Aff dropped the #2 on the standard doesn't mean I give it any more credence than a better explained and more persuasive argument.” I look for persuasion, and this means good slow crystallization and coherency; write the ballot for me. No speed or jargon. I expect a traditional Value/Value criterion structure. I strongly discourage running extremely technical or dense arguments in front of me. If you still feel like you HAVE to run arguments like this, explain them as if you were talking to someone with no debate experience. For example, don’t spread a theory shell saying “a is the interp, b is the violation etc...” Avoid using the jargon and speed, and just explain each step logically. Similarly, just reading Foucault and using the word biopower in a K will not work; explain the whole argument free of jargon/buzz words.