Trilokekar,+Rajdeep

3 years of varsity level debate Currently a student at Harvard University; have worked with Harvard CX Debate Rounds judged on surveillance topic: ~6
 * Experience**

Run whatever you want. I will buy anything and everything. I don't like certain arguments but I believe my judging philosophy removes any personal thresholds as far as possible. I will detail what I like/don't like; if you have questions ask them.
 * Key points of my to paradigm**

//Call voters!// I will vote on what you tell me to vote on! This is the most important thing in my paradigm.I want both sides to tell me what argument(s) I should be evaluating when signing my ballot and how I should prioritize them. Therefore, impact your voters. This extends beyond a framework, telling me where to cast my ballot in the line by line is going to be important. Just calling "this is an independent voter" isn't good enough. Use your rebuttals for this; you don't have to have full voter analysis through the debate but having that analysis makes your voters easier to buy. I //will// vote up a team on the other team's voter if the team wins it so pick your voters intelligently. If you think you might not win an argument, tell me it's a lower priority voter and explain why. Why do I judge this way? It removes my prioritization from the debate, and makes it more about how effectively the two teams before me debate. Also, I think an effective debate team can take a step back and //analyze// the round. Big picture thinking! You being able to actively determine what you're winning on and articulate why you're winning on that is the best such indicator.

I don't have a presumption.

Slow down on analytics/taglines. It helps me, it helps you. You get faster and get a more accurate flow for me to evaluate. I don't get a headache evaluating your arguments.

__T__: I buy it if you explain it well. T blocks aren't good enough to win, you need to explain it. I don't think my threshold is particularly high, but I need an explanation on any argument. A-Spec/O-Spec will be hard to win unless you make a really good argument. __K__: I buy them; explain them well. It will be hard for me to give you a voter on a K if you haven't explained. Usually aff can't win perm on K, but that doesn't mean they can't, so I dont' default either side on perms. __F/W + Theory__: I enjoy this a lot. I don't have a high threshold, but make it super clear for me. I think this is the best way for you to show off your "big picture thinking" with actual clash __CP__: It's hard to win a successfully competitive CP for the neg without running into strong theory arguments, I believe. Again, doesn't mean it isn't possible. I don't default aff on perms. __DA__: Don't underestimate the power of a good DA __Case__: Best part of the debate if successfully run. On both sides. Don't drop case. Period. Case will win you the round more often than not.
 * Arguments**

I don't like to do work for either side. I will only if I need to and try to do equal work for both sides. If you can be funny/make puns that is good because it shows you can think on your feet and that you understand the flow of the debate well enough to joke about it. Plus it's good to be personable! Good luck!
 * Overall:**