Aditya+Shekhar

TL;DR: I vote for the team/debater that did the better debating :)

Hello There! First off, thank you so much for checking out my paradigm (kudos!). I debated for four years at the Blake School, during which time I found decent success on the national circuit in Public Forum, Congressional Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, and World School’s Debate. I’ve dabbled in Policy and LD and have a working understanding of the events and its arguments. My paradigms are event-specific, meaning that I’m looking for different things in different events, but I fundamentally believe there are certain principles that apply, regardless of format.

General Comments:
 * Don’t just tell me your arguments, explain why they matter within the context of the debate round and warrant and analyze the impacts
 * What’s important to you isn’t always important to me - avoid uncertainty: tell me what to weigh and why
 * Don’t live in the vacuum of only your argumentative side - compare and weigh your arguments against those of your opponents
 * I’ll vote off of literally anything, so be creative and make sure you can defend your position passionately and authentically
 * Debate isn’t just about arguments (granted they are super important), but how well you can communicate them under a variety of situations - good stylistic ability isn’t a must, but can help tremendously
 * The ballot of almost any format of debate asks the judge to vote for the team that did the better debating: do the better debating and make my job easy!
 * Evidence isn’t everything, give its context, establish its credibility, and tell me why it changes how I should view/look at the resolution/bill/motion

Congressional Debate: I don’t really have any argumentative specifics. In Congressional debate, be memorable, distinguish yourself from your peers through your collaboration and debate. Think: be better than everyone else before making everyone look worse.
 * Be memorable: tasteful humor, unique stylistic choices
 * Include other speakers in your speeches
 * Be creative with argumentation: we’re simulating policy makers thinking about the best wishes for their constituents, offer counterplans, counter solutions, ie. anything that can make the world a better place
 * It’s the Aff’s job to make the world a better place, it’s the Neg’s job to tell me why the particular solution won’t or (bonus points) a worse place

Public Forum Debate: In Public Forum, I would consider myself more of a “circuit judge” in the sense that I’m more open to speed, more complicated arguments, and thorough impact analysis. I try and weigh whatever you give me as debaters, whether that be an advocacy, big-ticket impacts, or just better argumentation. I don’t have too many specifics, but I do like to see clear extensions of impacts - clear impact analysis and weighing wins rounds!
 * 2nd Rebuttal should begin rebuilding
 * Impacts are the name of the game!
 * Keep CF civil and cordial
 * I’ll absolutely listen to theory, but keep it relevant and to the point

World School’s Debate In all honesty, I go back and forth on how to best judge this event. I suppose my judging style will change depending on the tournament I’m at. With an international field and judging pool, I’m significantly more likely to view the round under the three areas that debaters are graded upon: style, content, and strategy. With a more US-centric judging pool and argumentation style, I’ll be voting more off of the arguments themselves and more receptive to US jargon and argument structure.
 * Case should go 2-1 (with two substantives in the first and one in the second)
 * Refutation should begin with the 1st Opp
 * Team Cohesion and Extensions “down the bench” is always helpful
 * Sufficient defense as to make me not want to vote for the Prop stance is a compelling reason for me to vote Opp
 * 3rd should be comparative of big voting issues as opposed to line-by-line

Policy Debate: I approach the debate however you want me to: policy maker, hypothesis tester, games player, etc. I try and be as tabula rasa as possible - letting the arguments speak for themselves, but given I’m only mortal, that can’t always be the case. I prefer email chains, unless circumstances don’t allow it. I’m not the fastest judge you’ll ever have, so don’t go in ‘guns blazin’ - watch me and see if I can keep up. This section of my paradigm is the shortest: deliberately. Simply put: you debate how you want to debate and I’ll judge how you want me to judge.

Extemporaneous Speaking: Think of this event like you’re giving a persuasive school essay out loud. To that end, I’m kinda like that cool teacher who’s totally ok with humor, esoteric references, and wacky metaphors. Extemp is like that, but more of having a conversation. Basically, be verbally fluent, succinct and clear in communicating your points across, don’t underdo/overdo gestures (they help get your point across up to a point when they become distracting), and keep things informative!