Sarodia,+Ankur

I am a firm believer that the content of the round is dictated entirely by the debaters. I do not care if you run inherency or a critique - I will vote on anything and everything and have no significant predispositions one way or another. That being said, I am most comfortable with case/stock issues, disads and CPs. I am not thrilled with theory or critiques, but if that is your strength, its probably better that you slow down a little and take more time to explain your arguments than to run an argument with which you are less comfortable. I am not opposed to offensive arguments or patently absurd ones and have voted for both in the past. Debate is a game and I treat it as such. If you are unsure about whether or not to run an argument, you can always ask.
 * The Arguments:**

//Stocks/Case// - I generally tend to believe that the presentation of a case meeting prima facie burdens results in a shift in burdens whereby the negative must prove the aff case undesirable or demonstrate how the aff failed to meet their burdens. //Theory// - I do not have the capability to flow a 20 point T response in 30 seconds. In fact, I dont know anyone who can. Slow down on theory! //Critiques// - I am generally more familiar with the classic non-postmodern critiques (e.g. feminism, anthro, statism, etc)

Logic and reasoning are your friends. If something doesn't make sense, its a good thing to point it out. I believe debate begins and ends with Toulmin - an argument without warrants does not merit the ballot regardless of the impact or concessions on the flow. This means that analytics have weight in my world. I am prone to voting against arguments that don't make sense: For example, if the negative challenges the affirmative evidence supporting the theory of global warming, it makes little sense to go affirmative in the absence of successful counterpoint. "Its just defense" is not a sufficient response - I suggest you not make those responses and in the event that your opponent does, you should exploit it.

I go completely off my flow. If you were unclear or speaking too quickly and your argument doesnt make my flow, then it didn't happen. To be fair to competitors, if I am having difficulty understanding you I will yell 'clear' or 'slow' once. If I am in a particularly good mood, maybe twice. But after that its up to you and your partner to watch me to make sure I am still flowing. It is also important to keep my flow organized. Be sure to signpost and indicate specifically where you are going on the flow. Slowing down when reading tags is probably a good idea as well.
 * The Flow:**

I consider ethics to be of great importance in debate simply because the judge cannot see what you are reading nor is keeping track of what you are doing when you aren't speaking. I treat dishonest behavior as the most heinous of offenses and will reward it with zero speaks. Dishonest behavior includes (but is not limited to) internal cuts which change the meaning of evidence (i.e. not reading the word 'not'), stealing evidence/flows, stealing prep time/speech time, blatant lies about what you said previously in the round, communicating with persons not taking part in the round. I will never look at evidence after the round unless the warrants of it are challenged in the round, the debaters ask me to review it as proof, and that the decision comes down to the evidence in question.
 * Ethics:**

I will use whatever scale the tournament recommends and will not deviate from it under any circumstance except as guided by my view on ethics. I will never award double wins or double losses regardless of the arguments for them, but I am not opposed to low point wins as long as the tournament permits them. I can appreciate humor in a round, and being a smartass is not entirely useless. But there is a difference between being a snarky, sarcastic smartass and being an asshole to your partner and to your opponents - dont be the latter.
 * Speaker Points & Other:**

I am a VERY strict non-interventionist. My decision should come directly from your last rebuttals. This means that impact analysis is critical as is relational analysis comparing your arguments to those of your opponents. My decision calculus is also what I refer to as debater-interpretive: you are free to instruct me how I should be evaluating the arguments and I need not view the entire set of arguments through a single lens as you can tell me to view one argument as a policymaker and another as a hypotester. It is actually possible to have an entire debate about what my lens(es) should be. That being said, if you do not assign a specific lens to me, I default to strict policymaker. I define policymaker as comparing the affirmative and negative policies and deciding which would be superior if implemented. This means that theory and similar considerations, including in-round implications, simply do not matter.
 * RFD:**

Debate Experience - 5-6 years in high school; been judging for more than 10. Academic background - engineering, biology, chemistry, and pharmacy. Professional background - pharmaceutical research and development. Debate research interests - healthcare, US-China politics, economics, and resource geopolitics. Political philosophy trends generally towards fiscal conservatism, socially liberal, with a strong emphasis on greater federal control at the expense of states as well are pro-US hegemony, both hard and soft power.
 * My Background:**

If you choose to use information about me that you have gathered online, namely what is out there on cross-x.com, I highly suggest you ask me about my actual beliefs on the subject in question as I frequently advocate the underdog argument online as a means of encouraging discussion among the community. Use this information as you wish. If you believe in not running arguments the judge knows well, this does not apply to me. I will never penalize you for poorly running an argument I know well. I am more prone to giving you a lengthy list of suggestions as to how to better your argument.

I keep my flows for one year or until my laptop kicks, whichever comes first. Feel free to email me at psu_lionz [at] yahoo [dot] com and I will happily discuss the round with you. I recommend you email me sooner than later to ensure that I remember the round well.

Perkiomen Valley HS
 * School Affiliation:**