Krishnamurthi,+Naveen

My name is Naveen Krishnamurthi. I debated at Torrey Pines High School in CA for four years and am currently a freshman at Stanford University (Class of 2015).

I qualified to the TOC in LD Debate my junior and senior years, accumulated 5 career bids and reached late elimination rounds at tournaments including Stanford(Finals), ASU(Champion), and Quarterfinals at Berkeley, Glenbrooks, and Valley. I haven’t really judged at any tournaments this year, so I’m a little out of touch with the activity, but I’ll try my best to make the right decision. **__Paradigm:__** I really like it when debaters have good argument and evidence comparison. I also like overviews that tell me how the round breaks down and how to make my decision. I really really enjoy seeing policy-style debate, but given the topic I know that’s not likely to happen. I <3 the LARP (if it’s good).
 * Stuff I like:**

I’m cool with speed, but please for the love of god be clear. I’m not that great of a flower so please try to go slow for taglines before blitzing through your evidence. Theory’s cool, I ran a lot of it in high school. Use your judgement, don’t be stupid about it. RVI’s are fine as long as you justify and win them. I’m ok with you using spikes to exclude large portions of your opponent’s case. I’m fine with you asking questions during prep. If someone asks you a question, I expect you to respond. Presumption is fine. I’m kind of a lazy judge, so it makes my job easier. It’s fine to just extend an argument’s main idea without spending too much time on it if it isn’t contested. Flesh out the extension if it is.
 * Stuff that I’m fine with:**

Messy framework debates. I really suck at evaluating these. I’ll try not to dock your speaks, but if you and your opponent are gonna have a meta-ethics throw-down, and are both running complex deont standards, my decision will probably end up being incoherent and wrong. If you’re determined to run an ethical framework other than something simple like net-benefits, be really really really clear on how it functions. Try to also give a phenomenal overview that explains how the framework debate is resolved. Again, I’m very bad at adjudicating messy complex ethics debates, please try not to have them in front of me. In my dream debate round, both debaters agree on net benefits and have a phenomenal substantive debate with really nuanced advantages and disads (with an interesting CP or theory shell thrown into the mix). I don’t like a prioris. I don’t like necessary but insufficient standards. I don’t like it when you craft your standard in a sneaky way that’s structurally prevents the other debater from being able to generate offense under it. I’ll still vote for you if you win the round using these tactics, but I do reserve the right to dock your speaks. Please trash your opponent on theory if they run any of this stuff. Miscutting ev pisses me off. So does minimizing words like “maybe” or “possibly,” or minimizing the part of the card where the author basically refutes all of the stuff you just read. Your speaks will be docked if you do these things. I’ll generally call for evidence after the round.
 * Stuff I don’t particularly enjoy:**

MARK WHAT YOU DID/DID NOT READ SO IT’S CLEAR TO YOUR OPPONENT. The burden is on you to remember. If you forget and your opponent realizes and asks you to start marking in the middle of their speech, you better do it (the longer this takes, the more speaker points you lose). Run theory if your opponent fails to mark the stuff they read, and it becomes a serious problem in round. I’ll try to be nice with speaks until someone yells at me. If I think you’re decent I’ll give you a 28.5 or higher.
 * Miscellaneous:**

Skepticism, determinism, and most micropolitical arguments. I’m unlikely to vote for any of these positions, so run them at your own risk.
 * Positions that will probably make you lose the round with low speaks:**


 * If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round! Good luck!**