Kejriwal,+Arnav

I graduated in 2010 from Greenhill. I debated 2 years under Jonathan Paul and 2 years under Eric Forslund. In terms of argument preference, if Forslund has judged you, then you’ll find me almost identical. His wiki is here: http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Forslund%2C+Eric

Though I’m willing to judge any argument, I highly prefer debates that are contextualized to the 1ac. Specific arguments from the 1ac’s literature base will be rewarded in terms of argument leeway and when defending theory (not to mention speaker points).

I’m putting this post up right before the Greenhill RR, so when teams are breaking new affs early in the season, I give the neg huge leeway if they’re willing to put together a CP or case turns using 1ac text. For instance, if you need to revise a case-specific CP in the 2nc, I think this becomes easily justifiable. Not to say that you’re off the hook for theory -- but I’ll do my best to reward critical thinking.

I love well-researched, expansive affs that push debates into uncharted territories. On neg, while you may not always have a case-specific strategy prepared, do your best to incorporate 1ac evidence into your 1nc. There is no better evidence than cards or contradictions from the 1ac. Analytical takeouts should also hold as much sway as (most) evidence.

Caveat: though I do love specificity and will reward teams that engage the other side, I try to minimize the amount of “work” that I have to do for either side. I will read cards for context or to verify accuracy, but typically you need to instruct me on when and why to read a piece of evidence. I will not make a decision based on warrants in evidence that you don’t reference in the debate yourself.

Please impact calc: Standard impact claims (magnitude, probability, etc) are always a must. However, meta impact calculus hold more significance than the line-by-line. As a policymaker, why is magnitude preferable (or problematic) when analyzing policy change? What impact could a probability-first lens have on policy formation? These are the types of frameworks that will help shape my decision.

For critical arguments, it’s your responsibility to be clear about unique terminology (to myself as well as to the other team).

In terms of theory, I’m ok with those debates as long as there’s an impact.