Baskaran,+Archit

__ General Info __ I was a Public Forum Debater for four years with Brookfield East High School in Wisconsin, with experience ranging from circuit tournaments, CFL/NFL Nationals, and the TOC.

I strongly value crystallization with simple and clear arguments and weighing mechanisms established by the debaters. Ideally, my work should be at a bare minimum at the end of the round. If you identify the voters for me, weigh the arguments properly should it be necessary, and crystallize your criterion, I will more easily be able to sign my ballot.

__ Speed __ I cannot flow spread, and I will visibly stop flowing if you are going too fast. That being said, I do flow speed. I flow ~225 to 230 words per minute, provided you slightly slow down when reading author names/cards and multifaceted frameworks. Do not feel obligated to read at the speed of a snail. If you feel the need to go very fast suddenly (e.g., you realize you are running out of time), you may speak very quickly at the risk of sacrificing clarity on my flow. Historically, however, speed has never been problematic in any of the rounds I have judged.

__ Extensions __ When you extend an argument that has a carded citation on it, please do not just say "Extend Oppenheimer" and leave it at that unless the card is the defining point of the round and has been mentioned so many times that everyone watching the round should know what the evidence says. Instead, say "Extend Oppenheimer who tells you that..." This is only in your best interest, for it will make it easier for me to flow your extensions.

__ Theory, Kritiks and Other LD Jargon __ I have a Public Forum background with little experience debating higher level LD case structures. Keep that in mind when you debate, because although I will still vote on Theory, K's, and the like, I will be confused unless you crystallize your case in a way that makes it understandable. That goes for any argument you choose to make in the round. Make clear and concise explanations, run any argument you wish, and I will flow and consider it in my decision.

__Impact Calculus__ I am a big fan of it. I'm often left at the end of a round wondering which framework to choose between, which criterion to uphold as more important, etc. To simplify my ballot decision-making process, crystallize and weigh arguments at the end of the round. If the Affirmative values Contractualism while the Negative values Utilitarianism, tell me why one framework is specifically better than the other. I am especially open to policy-style weighing techniques like Reversibility and Inclusivity, so don't feel restricted to typical weighing mechanisms like magnitude and probability.

__Minutia__ I do allow for Flex Prep, so you may ask questions during prep time if both debaters agree to it