Rastogi,+Ruchir

I competed locally and nationally in LD for four years, qualifying to both TOC and Nats twice. I now attend Stanford University. I am conflicted from LAMP High School and Cypress Bay JS.

I think debate should be the debaters’ game, not the judges’ sport. I will vote on any argument as long as it is won. However, I think that it’s impossible to be completely //tabula rasa//. Judges are human too, and we all come in with our own biases and preferences for how debate should look. That being said, I will be as objective as possible, and I would prefer you read arguments that you are most passionate about or comfortable with rather than adapt to my stylistic preferences.

__Random notes and preferences__
 * As a debater, I was never great at flowing, and there are some rates of delivery I just cannot understand. Please slow down on all tags, card names, and analytics, especially theory and short framework args. Varying your inflection and explicitly numbering spikes is also really helpful.
 * Argument comparison is key. Not only does it help spin your argument in a new light, but it is necessary to win most rounds. Simply stating that your arg “controls the internal link” is not sufficient though.
 * I am well-versed in most analytic philosophy (especially Kantian ethics). However, do not use this as an excuse to blaze through unwarranted arguments hoping that I will do the work for you.
 * I never read much util, so please do not rely on policy jargon: for example, I do not fully understand what a “severance perm” is. If you spell out the impacts of your arguments though, you should be golden. I always found LARP debates to be some of the most interesting to watch.
 * Continental philosophy and kritiks are not my forte. They are usually convoluted and dense, and reading these arguments at 300 wpm doesn’t make it any easier to understand. Please try to explain these arguments from the standpoint of a person who hasn’t read much of the literature, as, most likely, your opponent and I will be. The best K debaters I knew were also the best at explaining the warrants behind their arguments, as opposed to throwing out nonsensical jargon. With these arguments, it is also important to fully explicate the role of the ballot. I personally find post-fiat, topical Ks to be much more convincing, but I will vote on pre-fiat Ks if they are won.
 * Paragraph theory and tricks are perfectly fine and make for entertaining rounds. As a note of caution though, I will not vote on an argument that I did not hear the first time you made it unless your opponent has the chance to answer it in the next speech. For example, if there is a spike in the AC that I don’t catch, then it can be extended in the 1AR, but I will grant new 2NR responses.
 * I have moderate thresholds for extensions (slightly lower if they are conceded). At the bare minimum, extensions should summarize the argument’s warrant.
 * I’ll try to average my speaks around 28.5 and base them on argument quality, efficiency, and strategy. Feel free to ask me for your speaks after the round.

Above all else, be kind and be passionate but not arrogant. Debate is a great activity, and I hope you enjoy your time competing as much as I did. Please don’t hesitate to ask me any questions before the round. S/O to Varun Bhave.