Balasubramanian,+Sai

PWSH '08 AC '12

The following information is just my basic judging style. If you have any questions, please clarify and ask me before the round begins.

Generic: I'm usually good with any arguments that are made clearly and are done well. Make sure for everything you DO use on your side of the flow, you give a clear link and emphasize how it fits in with your argument and your opponent's argument. Also, as far as speaker points go, I'm usually quite generous with speaker points and you'll usually come out of the round with excellent points. I'm generally good with speed--however, if you are not clear during your speech, I will yell out "clear!" to let you know.

The only thing that I try to stray away from is a round centered entirely on K theory, or theory in general. I like to stay within the realms of policy debate, and I like to discuss straight policy, rather than a critique of the policy or a critique of the arguments made. With that said, as mentioned above, I am usually good with any arguments if you give me a good enough reason to listen to them (meaning excellent links and impacts!).

Finally, one of the most important voters for me is impact calculus. If you can tell me why your impacts matter more, and will happen faster than the other team's at the end of your round, then that will be a huge factor in my decision.

Again, if you have any specific questions regarding specific arguments, ask me before the round.