Nathan,+Vikram

I attended high school at The Harker School and debated LD (mostly circuit tournaments) for four years. I graduated in 2009 and am now a sophomore at Harvard University. I don't have a particularly strict judging philosophy. I will vote on pretty much anything as long as its 1) comprehensible, 2) well warranted, and 3) impacted clearly. I am okay with theory, but I don't like it when there isn't really any abuse and people use it just as a "pre-standards" way out of the round. If there is clear abuse, then yes, I would prefer that there be a theory debate to go along with it, but I generally prefer substantive topical arguments to theory. I am okay with some speed as long as it doesn't compromise comprehensibility. It's been a couple of years since I've actively debated, so my flowing will probably be a bit rusty.

Of course, there are exceptions to all these rules. Ask me before the round to clarify.