Narayanan,+Ajjit

I debated LD on the national and local circuit for 4 years at James Logan HS in California.

I will vote for pretty much anything (as long as its not explicitly racist, homophobic, ableist, etc). I don’t have any strict defaults and will try to operate under the shared assumptions of both debaters. That being said I’m probably better at resolving util and theory debates, than I am with resolving dense FW and K debates but don’t let that limit the scope of your argumentation. I enjoy good K debates, and believe that any framework that excludes discussion of identity and oppression is problematic. Just err on the side of ever explaining.

In general, the way I resolve a round is by deciding what framework to use (whether that be a vc, ROB, etc) and seeing who has the better offense under that framework. Layering, sequencing, and well structured overviews will make me like you. I believe it’s the job of the debaters to tell me who won, not the other way around. So please make my job easier for me. Weigh or Lose.

Speed is fine, but please start slow and build up, slow down for tags and analytics and before and after authors. I’ll only yell clear a couple of times. If I miss an argument, it’s on you.

If you’re running Theory or T, just please make sure there’s actual abuse in the round, I hate having to judge frivolous theory debates and I’d much rather vote on substance. Of course, if there is clear abuse go for it.

In terms of speaks, I will reward debaters who are nice, funny, take risks or do something unique. My average is probably somewhere around a 28.5.

If you want more info on how I judge Koh, Benjamin has a paradigm that I am 100% in agreement with. Also just ask me before the round or hit me up at ajjit@upenn.edu