Alagappan,+Muthu

I debated for four years at Bellaire High School in Houston, TX. I competed on the national circuit all four years, and was the NCFL runner-up in LD my senior year. I also competed nationally in Extemporaneous speaking, so I have a predilection for polished speaking styles. I am currently a junior at Stanford University (as of February 2011), studying Biomechanical Engineering. I have also completed a one-quarter Philosophy tutorial at Oxford University.

To begin, I don't have any very specific judging preferences or attitudes. I believe my role as a judge is to evaluate the arguments that are presented in the most logical, fair manner. I like to see really clear, thought-out standards debates, to give me a clear weighing mechanism for all the impacts in the round. I am interested in and will vote on arguments that "come before the standard," as long as I am given rational, well-explained arguments for why that is the case.


 * Speed**: I was never an extremely fast debater, and I do have trouble flowing really fast rounds. If you are going too fast, I will yell "clear" or simply put my pen down, until you notice me. I think speed is useful in debate rounds because it increases the amount of educational content that can be discussed, but I do have a problem with debaters going very fast, especially if they are inefficient in their argumentation. If you are going fast, and there is any other aspect of the round where you could be saving time (better word economy, etc), that is a problem. Also, if as a debater, you are reading a very complex critical argument or presenting a very nuanced framework/position, I ask that you considerably slow down. If I don't understand what your argument is, I will not vote on it, and I am receptive to debaters making that argument in the round.


 * Theory:** I will vote on theory arguments, if I believe actual abuse has happened in the round. I believe there are many ways for the round to become abusive toward a certain debater, so I am receptive to hearing these types of abuse stories. However, any theory argument should be very well-structured and a clear story must be presented. If you are not spending critical time on the theory, then I don't believe you are actually being disadvantaged in the round.


 * Critical Arguments**: I don't have a problem with critical arguments, but if the philosophical position is complex, please explain it very clearly in your constructive. Again, if I don't understand the argument until the rebuttal, I won't vote on it. I have taken advanced philosophy courses, and understanding the nuances of those positions can take hours even for the best philosophical minds, so I am really frustrated by debaters who try to "spread" these arguments in minutes.


 * Off-Case Positions**: I am very receptive to off-case positions (counter-advocacy, underviews, disads, etc.), because I think they add very interesting cross-applications to the round. I like innovative, well-researched arguments in this space.


 * Overall Debate Strategies**: I like debaters who can synthesize the round and make strategic cross-applications. I view the round like a chess game, and I give good speaks to debaters who maximize the use of their pieces. I want debaters to tell me how their arguments function in the context of the round: how does it weigh into the standard, how does it interact with off-case positions, how does it take-out or interplay with all the other positions in the round. I like line-by-line debate, but with every argument you make, have the implications of the whole round in mind. In other words, don't make blippy arguments for the sake of having ink on paper. I am most impressed by debaters who make strategic arguments (double-binds, counter-advocacies, etc) that focus on the big issues in the round. Finally, I am a huge fan of good rebuttals, and in the rebuttals, I want you to do a very good job of crystallizing the round.

Also, although I debated on the circuit for four years, I don't buy in to a lot of the out-of-the-box, "trendy" debating styles and arguments. I like old-fashioned, strategic, well-researched arguments, and intelligent debating. Good luck!