Chakravarty,+Arnav

I debated for four years in high school and am debating for the NYC Coalition. I hated dealing with judges who were very picky, so I try to stay as open minded as possible. However, there are some arguments that I have preferences for and biases against.

Topicality: Like it, will vote on it. I default to competing interpretations framework, unless I'm told otherwise. For the negative, all your standards have to be impacted out and a very convincing T argument would have a specific abuse story. One thing I will say though, I'm not as favorable toward kritik of T arguments, but I will vote on them if the aff argues them well.

Case: I love case debate. I think it shows the depth of research and is very educational. You have to have case turns, and must impact them out. The ideal round for me would be a PIC, a couple of specific DA's that are net benefits to the PIC, and a load of case turns that the PIC avoids.

DA's: Also very good arguments. I like specific DA's more than general spending or politics DA's, but specific links are almost a must for me. there is such a thing as a non unique link and I do believe that those arguments are some of the strongest arguments the affirmative can make. On DA's, you have to have an impact calculus and must compare the world of the affirmative versus the negative. This comparison is necessary to help me evaluate which team to vote for, without having to intervene.

CP's: Open to all of them, except maybe consult CP's, unless the issue is really that important. I generally think dispositionality is good, conditionality is justified, and unconditionality is ballsy. PIC's are good. Agent CP's are fine. Perms are a test of competition, not an advocacy. If you're going for the theory debate, make sure you slow down, b/c my flow does tend to get muddled. Also have a specific abuse story, or it's doubtful that i'd vote for a theory argument.

K's: Again, open to them. I ran K's junior and senior yr, so I know how to argue them, but specific links and telling me 1) the framework with which I should evaluate the round and 2) the role of the ballot is very important. You also have to tell me how the alternative interacts with the affirmative. I generally default policy framework, but i'm open to other frameworks as well. The more specific the K, the better. Nuclear orientalism is a better K than statism is.

Ironic/Performative arguments: I'll be honest, I have very little experience with these types of arguments. You can have a performative aspect to a policy or kritikal affirmative, but I haven't debated these arguments very much. Consequently, I am partial to policy making good/fiat good type arguments here. But if you can tell me how your argument interacts with the resolution or the affirmative, and you do the better debating, I will vote for you. Unfortunately, my lack of experience with these arguments leaves you an uphill battle.

Finally, I can't handle the fastest of fast speeds. On a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being fastest, I can comfortably handle 7, and 8 is stretching it. Clarity is also very important to me. the quality of argument is far more important than the hundreds of cards you can read, so make sure you can make good arguments with me in the back of the room. I will not do that work for you.

If you are obnoxious, I will dock you speaker points. A lot. Normally, I give speaks w/n the 27 - 30 range. Hopefully this helps.

Arnav Chakravarty