Srinivasan,+Karthik

I debated at Woodward Academy for four years, and I now debate for Northwestern University.
 * Background:**

In the tradition of the great Jamie Saker, I consider myself a “phenomenology-influenced aesthetically-interpreting post-structural theorist with an applied transformative epistemological orientation.”
 * Official Paradigm:**

30­—perfect. You’re not. 27.5—average. 25—offensive. (This includes being a jerk to the other team or your partner, and cursing/hateful discourse if I think it’s intended maliciously.) 0—ethics violation. (Clipping/lying).
 * Speaker Points:**

Explanation is critical. I will only vote for positions I understand; depth of explanation and comparative analysis will greatly improve your speaks.

Clarity and persuasion are very important to me. Emphasis, vocal variation, and slowing down to connect can affect your speaker points and change how I evaluate your arguments. I think debate is a communication activity. I want to be able to understand the text of your cards when you spread. You should NOT sacrifice clarity for speed.

“I f*ing love Cross-X. Most people don't care enough about cross-x. If you use your Cross-x well (eg, if it is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are useful in speeches for important parts of the debate), my happiness and your speaker points will increase.” ~Nick Miller. I __agree__ w/ this, and basically everything else in his judge philosophy.

My three favorite, in no particular order: —Topic DA & Advantage CP —Case turns and case defense. —1-off Specific Critique
 * Ideal strategies:**

“I enjoy elegance, creativity, and intelligence. I don't so much enjoy brute force, trickery, or obfuscation. If your argument requires the other team to drop something in order for you to __win__, I'll probably think it's stupid. If your argument requires the other team to be confused about something in order for you to win, I'll probably think it's stupid. On the other hand, if your argument engages with the other team at a fundamental level, I'll probably think it's good—even if its "weird" or counter-intuitive. If it's creative, even better.”~Bill Batterman

Presumption goes to less change, not necessarily the negative.
 * Things I believe (that don’t fit in categories):**

It is the burden of the team advancing the argument to both explain their position and prove that it is correct. The affirmative needs to win their advantages; the negative needs to win their DA.

I am very willing to __grant__ absolute defense, especially if I feel an argument is silly.

Smart analytics = good. You don’t need evidence to make an argument.

Evidence v. Debating—if an argument is conceded and explained (or if one team is out-debating another), I won’t look to evidence. If arguments are well contested (at the margins), evidence is very important to me. Better evidence > more evidence. Evidence > spin.

I hack in the aff-ward direction.
 * Theory:**

Conditionality—I will vote on it. That said, one critique, one counterplan seems pretty reasonable to me. Any more than that, and I'll err aff; any less, and I'll err neg.

I think CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive. I think process, consult, are agent counterplans are cheating/not competitive. The larger the functional difference between the PIC and the plan, the more sympathetic I am to your argument.

“You need a solvency advocate for your counterplan. What’s a solvency advocate? Different people might have different standards, but I think it’s reasonable to have one that’s comparable to the solvency advocate for the affirmative.” I agree w/ this, and the rest of David Heidt’s rant about counterplans.

I default to reasonability. Only make T arguments if you have a good case that the aff isn’t topical; I don’t like the use of procedurals as time-sucks.
 * Topicality:**

In the same vein, I dislike shady affs that avoid the topic, and I very willing to vote on T in those instances.

To me, T is a question of evidence quality, not spin.

I like specific DAs/smart case turns. I strongly dislike the politics DA. You can lose on absolute uniqueness/link defense; I promise there isn’t “only a risk.”
 * Disadvantages:**

It’s your burden to establish competition/solvency/net benefits. Have fun w/ that.
 * CPs:**

I won’t kick your conditional CP for you, even if you tell me, unless you preform comparative calculus b/t the status quo and the plan in addition to your comparison b/t the counterplan and the plan. It’s your job to advocate something, not mine.

I like specific critiques. I’m cool w/ generic critiques if you do work to apply them to the aff.
 * Critiques:**

It is your burden to explain your framework and critique arguments to me.

I think “K tricks” are silly; conceding a four-second blip will not make me vote negative. If “VTL” or “It’s a floating PIC” is your strategy, that’s fine; just make sure that this is clear in the block/that you explain and justify your argument.

Aff: Frameworks that exclude the critique are entirely unpersuasive.

I am sympathetic to much of the content of these arguments. They have a relatively strong record in front of me because I think that many teams mishandle/don't understand them. I do not have a very strong background in critique literature, so the burden of explanation will be higher than normal for you. That said, when well extended and explained, I find framework to be persuasive.
 * Critical Affs/Performance:**