Radheshwar,+S.+Jovian

Currently I am a PhD candidate in Political Theory at the Political Science Program at University of California - Santa Barbara. Prior to that I worked for an attorney in the LA suburbs, I attended the University of Redlands where I participated in policy debate at the national level for two years. In high school I debated at the Bronx High School of Science in New York, and participated at the TOC, several national tournaments including Glenbrooks, Redlands and the West Coast Swing, as well as the Stanford Round Robin. So I have a decent amount of experience.

I have no particular judging philosophy other than that I do my absolute best to ensure that the best argument wins and that what counts as best is situational - evidence, rhetorical articulation, persuasiveness, creativity, justification, the creation and application of argumentative standards....etc., must be justified on a round-by-round basis - I guess that's called //tabula rasa//. Arguments merely asserted or presumed correct as per 'common sense' are probably a no-no for debaters I judge, as this tends to be unpersuasive and often is not based on contextual applications of reason.