Sastry,+Rahul


 * Affiliations**: Montgomery Bell Academy ('09), Stanford University ('13)


 * Experience**: 4 Years of Policy at MBA


 * Big Picture Stuff**: If I had to distill my judge philosophy down to one idea, it would probably be that the round is in the hand of the four debaters participating, and not the judge. That has a couple of general implications:

1. I don’t have biases against specific types or arguments – though I was not a huge fan of kritiks in high school, I am more than willing to vote for one provided that the Neg can clearly articulate //why// I should be voting for them. I would much rather be told how to evaluate the round than have to revert to my own arbitrary notions on the topic. The same holds for all other arguments.

2. Analysis is more important than anything else – I would really rather not have to read a ton of cards after the round; the point of rebuttals should be that evidence is expounded upon and perhaps applied in new ways to the issues in debate. I like to see teams that can draw distinction between their cards and their opponents’. On a related note, well-reasoned analytic arguments can be just as valid, if not more so, than a card, even in constructive speeches. Debaters often divorce themselves from the reality of what they argue, and I think that is unhealthy in general.

3. Tech is not so important – A dropped argument only matters insofar as it is an important dropped argument. It is OK for you to state an implicit cross-application that answers a “dropped” argument provided that the logic is sound.

4. Offense-Defense is silly – An argument is not assumed to be true until proven otherwise, and it is unlikely that I will vote on a low-risk argument. Strong defense, for instance, can more than neutralize a poorly thought-out politics DA.

5. Cross-X is VERY important – you can really make or break my perception of your argument with a strong showing in cross-x. Use it wisely. Humor is a plus. Tag-teaming in CX is OK in small quantities, but don’t shut your partner out entirely.

6. The big picture is important – 2NR and 2AR overviews are nicer if they can articulate a large-scale vision…that beats getting mired in insignificant details.


 * Specific Positions**: these are some of my implicit biases; that doesn’t mean that I can’t be convinced otherwise. That’s your job as a debater.

Topicality – I buy arguments like reasonability and competing interpretations bad.

Theory – I’m OK with pretty much anything, including multiple conditional frameworks. New in the 2NC is a little dicey though. I don’t exactly enjoy theory debates.

Counterplans – OK, as long as they are competitive. Consultation is not competitive. International/State CPs are (usually).