Rajan,+Rohit


 * Last Updated: 2/11/16**

3-time NDT qualifier. I spent the first half of my debate career reading exclusively "policy" arguments to experimenting more with critical theory the second half of my career. My 2NRs my senior year mainly consisted of framework, politics, T or psychoanalysis. I've been heavily involved in both sides of the framework debate. I have done zero work on this topic.

Contact info: rsrajan93@gmail.com

Big picture: -Not strictly offense/defense - I'm comfortable believing that there's such a low risk to something that it's not a concern.

-Impact COMPARISONS frame who I evaluate regardless of the genre of debate. Final speech ought to provide some insight into why the strategy you are going for is a good one.

-I reward evidence quality and good spin - one A card can beat 10 C cards but a B card with A spin beats an A card with C spin.

-Even...if argumentation is good because you're not likely to win every argument.

-Analytics - I think smart analytics can take out large portions of a lot of aff cases so use them wisely.

-Less is more. Good final speeches ought to be valuing breadth over depth. Fewer arguments that are better impacted out have a better chance winning in front of me than hoping your opponent drops a poorly impacted out argument.

Specific Arguments:

Framework: My voting record is about 50/50 here. To hedge effectively against limits claims, I think that aff's without plan texts ought to have a vision of what debate looks like under their interpretation. Similarly, I think the neg ought to have either a) an internal link from their interp of the resolution/debate to some larger impact that outweighs and is mutually exclusive with the aff or b) some defense to the substance of the aff via case arguments, a T version of the aff, SSD arg, state engagement args, etc to answer aff impact turns.

Kritiks: Specificity to the aff doesn't matter that much to me. I think that if the negative critiques a methodological underpinning necessary for the aff to be true/function, the burden is on the affirmative to answer that critique. Therefore, it behooves affs to have a defense of their epistemology, ontology, representations, etc. The aff can make specificity matters arguments but still needs to contextualize these for impact calculus or internal link takeouts.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations. For both sides, it's important to contextualize your standards to specific arguments related to the topic. This means that rather than talking about general limits/grounds claims we ought to be anchoring those discussions around specific arguments related to the topic.

CPs/Theory: I think that 2 conditional options for the neg is fine while 3+ is more questionable. While I err aff on theoretical objections to CPs that compete off the certainty of the aff happening, I think having a solvency advocate saying that the discussion is either pertinent or valuable on the topic may obviate a lot of these concerns.

If you have any questions, my email is above. I also type my RFDs after each round and can email those to you as well.