Rajagopalan,+Aravind

I’m currently a freshman at UCLA studying cognitive science and a coach for Dougherty Valley High School. In high school, I competed in policy, LD, parliamentary, congress, and in my senior year, I competed at state and nationals in policy debate. That being said, I have experience with all types of debate and am open to all types of arguments.

La Costa Canyon Note: I haven’t ever judged before, so don’t expect me to be familiar with any of the common arguments/authors/abbreviations for this topic.

Short version: -speed is fine -any argument is fine as long as it’s logical and well warranted -quality of arguments > quantity of arguments

Long Version: Speed: Speed is fine, but CLARITY IS KEY! I’ll yell clear if I’m unable to follow you, but if I need to yell clear more than 3 times in one speech, then I’ll stop flowing you. Please slow down for taglines, theoretical arguments, and complicated arguments, and signpost clearly.

Theory (policy): If a theory argument is conceded (assuming it was clearly explained), then I’ll vote for it in nearly all cases. Otherwise, I have a high threshold for theory, and winning on theory will require a clear violation and clear explanations for how the violation hurts debate. If you want to win on theory regardless, I expect the entire 2AR/2NR to be on theory.

Theory (LD): I have a much lower threshold for theory in LD, and will vote for any theoretical argument that is well argued and wins on the flow. I err aff on theory.

Topicality: Relatively high threshold for topicality, if you want to win on this, explain the violation and how it hurts debate and why it warrants a win for neg.

Kritiks: I’m not very familiar with a wide variety of K literature (I mainly ran anthro and levinas in high school), but will vote for any kritik. Clearly tell me what the ballot represents and how your alternative solves.

DA: Will vote on this independently, especially if it’s case specific. Generic DA’s are also fine as long as there is a well-defined link.

CP: Will vote on this, especially if neg also proves how the alternative solves for a DA.

General things: -I (almost always) won’t vote for neg if the 2NR is more than one argument (i.e. a policy DA and a Kritik). -Jokes = higher speaker points -Try not to run more than 4 off-case positions; quality > quantity -Be civil to each other

I will do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible, but please understand that judging is imperfect and highly subjective so be mindful of that.