Ketkar,+Ajay

I debated for Cinco Ranch High School in Houston, TX and competed on both the local and national circuit. I frequently judge all over Texas, at the local and national level. I have taught at the Mean Green Workshops at UNT and the Victory Briefs Institute.

My default paradigm is to evaluate the round based on whatever criterion/standard/burden the debaters tell me, and the arguments that are explicitly linked back to said standard. Even if its cleanly extended but not explicitly linked back to the standard, I will not do the work for you the right to ignore it. If there are arguments in the round that should be evaluated before of or indepent of the standard, I need a good warrant as to why I should evaluate them in such a manner. If there are mutliple issues in the round (case/multiple overviews/underviews/theory/discursive args) I want to be told exactly how and in what order I should be evaluating them, and the explicit implications of these arguments. If I am not given good reason as to why I should be evaluating these before the standard in the round, I have no problem ignoring them, even if your opponent drops them.

I think arguments are arguments, and will evaluate them on their merits. I don't reject any argument on face just because a certain author said it or it belongs to a certain school of thought. If you want to run something critical or dense, make sure the six or seven minutes you have to do so allow you make the argument clear and warranted. If your case is complex and you deliberately avoid clarification questions in CX, don't expect high speaks.

I have a pretty high standard for theory arguments. They need to be well warranted and all parts of it need to be articulated and extended. I will not vote on potential abuse, so if you want to run theory, you need to demonstrate in-round abuse.

I don't think speed is inherently good or bad. I hate speed for the sake of unleashing 75 blippy arguments onto the flow. I can appreciate speed if it is used to develop good arguments and have a in-depth, substantive debate. I also have issues with debaters being unclear. When I say clarity I mean a couple of things: 1) the intelligibility of your speaking, 2) signposting and 2) the functions and implications of arguments. If you are unclear with your signposting, you will lose me because I will be busy looking for where you could possibly be on the flow instead of paying attention to your responses, which is only unstrategic for you. There are a few recommendations I have to help you be more clear in front of me: -Slow down for taglines and author names, especially if you signpost by referring to the author -if you just gave a string of responses to an argument, pause for a second for two to let me catch up on the flow

I don't count arrows to determine a winner. Just because your opponent dropped the bottom of your case and you extend it, don't expect to automatically win. I will not do work for you, so if you don't explicitly impact to whatever standard I should be using, I will ignore it. On the flip side, I don't want to see blippy, poorly extended and impacted arguments that have little weighing analysis. In short, I won't do work for you.

A few things that will make me more likely to vote for you (as well as earn high speaks).

1. A clear story told to me by the debaters that tells me in what order I should evaluate arguments, and the functions of said arguments

2. Built-in weighing analysis for arguments starting in the constructive.

3. Strategic arguments/extensions that eliminate whole areas of argumentations

4. Comparative rebuttals that include weighing analysis

Good luck, and feel free to ask any questions, before or after the round.