Goyal,+Ritika

Ritika Goyal
__Background:__ Debated for 4 years in high school, judging/coaching part time for the last 5. Haven’t judged any rounds on the 2009-2010 topic.

__Overview:__ I am willing to listen to and vote on any argument you want to run if you give me good reasons why I should do so. Throughout the debate, you should be telling me why you should win and how I should look at the round.

__Speed:__ You’re welcome to go as fast you can, as long as you are clear. __Topicality:__ I enjoy T debates if they’re good. I will default to competing interpretations if you don’t give me a framework within which to evaluate your argument. Make sure you clearly articulate your standards and the implications of the other team’s interpretation.

__Theory:__ Perfectly comfortable voting on theory if you do more work on it than just reading your blocks. I don’t have any biases towards the legitimacy or illegitimacy of any types of arguments, you can basically convince me to vote on or against any theoretical issue as long as you define a framework for your argument and give me clear impacts.

T and theory are no different than any other arguments in the sense that I will evaluate them based on offense and defense.

__The K:__ Please make sure you know what your evidence/author is talking about when you run a criticism. You need to clearly define the framework within which I should look at case and the K and just as with any other position, tell me what the impacts are.

__DA/CP:__ These args often make for the best debates as they naturally lend themselves towards more clash than some other positions. Extending warrants is critical—I will read your evidence, but I probably won’t vote on a brilliant argument your evidence makes if you don’t articulate it in-round.

__In Conclusion:__ You probably noticed a recurring theme in my paradigm—define a framework for your argument and give me well articulated impacts. It will substantially increase your chances of getting my vote.