Singal,+Vineet

I debated for three years at the Bronx High School of Science in Bronx, NY on both the local and national circuits. I recently coached at Mission San Jose High School in Fremont, CA and am currently a junior at Stanford University.

OVERVIEW: I evaluate rounds similar to the majority of judges on the national circuit: through a weighing mechanism. What I love about LD is the presence of a structure that, for the most part, gives rounds a predictable nature that makes an inherently subjective activity like debate somehow a lot more objective. As such, I will default to a criterion, and if there isn't one, will look to an alternate way to evaluate the round (burdens, side constraints etc.)

SPEED: I can flow relatively fast speeds, and kind of like flowing fast rounds because it helps me become a better flower. In other words, speed is not an issue for me.

THEORY: I have two criteria for theory: 1. There was to be clear abuse. In other words, there has to be a brightline for said abuse, and you have to show how the other debater explicitly crosses that brightline. 2. The voter has to sufficiently compelling for me to reject all the (hopefully) really interesting and substantive case debate and vote on a debate about debate.

APRIORI ARGUMENTS: I consider debate to be more about substance than about strategy, although from personal experience I know that strategy sometimes tends to override or even replace substance. As a debater, I sometimes used to run a-priori arguments and other "sneaky" arguments that retrospectively I consider a not so smart/educational idea. However, if an argument is substantively developed and comes logically prior to the criterion/other arguments, then it is definitely legitimate.

SPEAKS: Speaker points will depend upon the quality of analysis, the extent of research conducted, and the nuanced nature of arguments. Speaking style is important, but not more than the aforementioned things. Unique, warranted arguments will probably get more speaks than stock ones.

Just by way of reference, I advanced to elimination rounds at tournaments such as Wake Forest, VBT, and Blake amongst others. I was invited to several round robins including the Lexington and Dowling Catholic Round Robins. I also attended the Tournament of Champions in 2008. Because I know how hard debaters work to prepare for tournaments, I guarantee I'll be making a full effort to follow the arguments and decide based only on the arguments that are made in the round.