Pujari,+Roshan

Qualifications: MA, JD. Debated For Heritage Hall a long time ago, Kentucky Fellow, Top speaker Nationals, NDT at Univ of Redlands

After many many years involved on both levels I havent been involved for a few years.

I will evaluate and vote for anything. I prefer theory and kritik arguments to be well thought out and and relevant to the case but I will listen to anything. I am more interested when the neg argues the case and its cp's or kritiks are germaine to the case. Often times these theoretical arguments are better done slower and more deliberate but obviously speed is no problem.

Please give detailed impact analysis but this is no substitute for link or solvency debate.

I always loved strong topicality debate if it is smart and well designed.

I prefer fewer but really good cards as opposed to a slew of them from newsmax, qualifications can be a very important part of the debate as well if it is included.

I also enjoy politics da's if they are not caned and can show linkage and are extremely relevant to the current political landscape.

I will listen to anything as long as it has a strong argument and try not to let my personal views on what a good argument is interfere with my duties as a judge.