Agarwal,Vrinda


 * Background:** I debated LD for 3 years and PFD for 1 year at Acton-Boxborough HS in MA (graduated in 2015). I debated on the local and national circuits, and attended NSD for 2 years. I now attend the University of Chicago.

I consider myself a traditional judge, in that I would rather see a substantive round about the topic. I am probably not the best person to evaluate Ks, plans, theory, and the like so if this is your primary strat, don’t pref me.

STUFF I LIKE: - WEIGHING! Though I’ll avoid being interventionist as much as possible, I need clear implications to extensions. Just having more ink on the flow won’t cut it if you’re not doing the work to convince me why your arguments are important and how they interact with the rest of the round. - In general, try to weave a clear narrative as to how the round breaks down. You’ve all probably heard this enough times before, but the ballot really should write itself. - Clever arguments and strategy, in general thinking on your feet - Framework clash, unique arguments, topical critical arguments - Witty comments/ unforced pop culture references or puns – signs that you’re enjoying the round! (though please don’t feel pressured to be funny or entertaining if that’s not your style as a debater! Just do you and be comfortable in the space)

Other Issues/Random Notes


 * Speed:** Please slow down! I haven’t been involved in circuit debate for almost a year now, so I probably won’t be able to catch what you’re saying if you’re spreading at top speed. That being said, as long as you are clear, and articulate/inflect like a normal human being, you should be fine. I will say “slow” or “clear,” and will only dock speaks if I have to say it more than 3 times during a speech.


 * Theory:** As I said above, if theory is your main strat, I’m not your judge. I can evaluate theory, though, and am open to it in a case of actual in-round abuse. I default to reasonability.


 * Offensive/Mean Arguments**: I will not vote on these, so don’t even try. Also, please don’t be mean to or bully your opponent, especially if you are clearly winning the round. I strongly believe that debate should be a more inclusive environment, and round should be fun and a great learning experience for everyone.


 * Policy Arguments**: I’m fine with topical plans, CPs, DAs, etc as long as your impacts actually make sense with the topics. I’m really skeptical of tenuous extinction links.


 * Speaks**: Seeing as Glenbrooks 2015 is my first tournament as a judge, I may be adjusting my speaker points range. For now, I’ll probably keep in the range of 27.5 – 29.5, with 30s for people who absolutely amaze me and 15 for any serious issues (offensive arguments, rape jokes, being mean, etc)

Please feel free to ask me any other questions you have! I’m not intimidating, I promise.