Upadhya,+Rahul


 * Background:** I debated locally and on the circuit in LD at Montville HS in NJ for 4 years and am now coaching LD for McQuaid Jesuit in Rochester, NY. I graduated in 2013 and now attend the University of Rochester. I can be classified as being slightly more of a traditional judge.


 * Case reading and speed:** I am used to flowing speed and likely shouldn't have an issue with it. Don't start off at top speed, as I'd prefer it if you work your way up gradually. I will definitely yell clear if I can't understand you or flow what you're saying. Slow down on taglines and author names.

**Cross-Ex:** Just don't be rude, that's all I ask. Other than that, I don't place a huge value on cross-ex. However, if you can make it seem like your opponent lacks understanding or expose a fault in their reasoning/case, that can sway my decision. Keep in mind, cross-ex is binding and I'm all right with flex prep.

**Framework:** I would like to see you try to establish your F/W and use it to explicate how I am supposed to weigh the round. Keep in mind, that I am looking for solid links and expect you to make them clear to me if I am to use your F/W. Also, I find it really impressive when someone is able to both link into their own F/W and opponent's. Certainly shows dominance in the round if you can pull it off. I may or may not evaluate any spikes you place here. Just because you extend a blippy sentence or two that's an assertion doesn't mean that you automatically win the round. I expect you to have analysis in case explaining why your spike is legitimate and how it functions. Please don't make me be the one to have to weigh the round myself.

**Evidence:** I am going to call on evidence that is questionable or seems really important in the round (if need be). I hate seeing cards that are miscut and analyzed incorrectly. This will tick me off but not necessarily cause you to drop the round. If anything, I would penalize you in speaks and disregard that particular card.

**Theory:** I don't have a technical knowledge of shells. I also would rather a round not come down to these types of arguments and be more substantive. With that being said, if your opponent is being abusive, I would rather see non-shell theory with an explanation about why this is bad for the round. If you still end up running a shell, be sure to explain how it functions. If someone is responding to theory, I am not going to be very strict/technical about the wording they use and whether or not they're going line by line. Instead, if they make a well-warranted response explaining how they aren't being abusive, that should be sufficient to get out of the shell. I don't really see theory as a great offensive strategy and have a high threshold for it.

**Policy-Style Arguments:** Clarity is key. If you're running a plan, cp, k, etc, be sure to be clear with your argument. It's not that I will reject any of these arguments, it's just that I am not technical and will treat it like any other argument.

**Crystallization and Extensions:** You need to do the work on the flow. Tell me to extend an argument and state the implications. In other words, weigh the argument and show me how it benefits you in the round. Be sure to crystallize at some point in your last speech. I'm ok with you doing it separately or along the way, as long as you list reasons you win under an established mechanism. Again, weigh the round for me under your F/W or your opponent's!

**Speaks:** I like to think I'm fairly generous. A big thing for me is how you convey your ideas/arguments, as well as strategy and time management (especially during rebuttals). Some things I could dock speaks for:
 * Bad time strategy (especially in the 1AR!)
 * Being rude to your opponent during cross-ex, or being a douche during rebuttal
 * Making offensive arguments
 * Presenting overly abusive or unreasonable definitions (like Alabama is a nation state)
 * Bull shitting
 * Not going for offensive argumentation (turns, extensions) in an effective way

The most important thing, just have fun!