Raj,+Vivek

Paradigm for UPenn '16: (conflict with duPont Manual High School)

I debated in LD throughout high school (in lay and national circuit settings). Although, I was admittedly very unsuccessful in the national circuit (0 TOC bids, in spite of trying). I haven't been involved in debate since I graduated from high school in 2013. I know how much effort students put into preparing for debate tournaments, so I take the responsibility of judging you very seriously. Here are some thoughts (these are thoughts I have taken from Prashant Rai): Here are some additional thoughts written by me:
 * I am not current with the norms of the activity; if certain kinds of arguments are now in style that were not several years ago, I might not understand them. I will do my best, but you have been warned that I do not have experience on those arguments that fit the above description.
 * I am not "in shape" with regard to flowing rounds. My hand might cramp if you go too fast, and I might not be able to discern the content of your arguments if you go too fast. Again, I do not mean to imply that I have an ideological problem with fast debate; I just am out of practice.
 * My presumptions might be outdated. The following are the presumptions with which I am working: (a) theory arguments need demonstrated in-round abuse to constitute voting issues, (b) absent pre-standards arguments, the default mechanism for evaluating the round is through impacts to the value criterion. All of these presumptions are of course rebuttable but they represent my default position.
 * I have done zero research on this topic, and have seen zero rounds on this topic. This means that if there are acronyms that are commonly used in debates on this topic, I will be unfamiliar with them. If there are common arguments that debaters refer to with buzzwords (e.g., "Deep Ecology"), there is a high risk that I will be unfamiliar. Do not skip steps in your arguments on the assumption that I know where you are going. Presume that I do not know where you are going.
 * Clean extensions are crucial to winning my ballot (I'm really looking for the Claim, Warrant, Impact here!)
 * I am open to all arguments (skep, theory, K's, plans, etc.), as long as it is clear why this means I should vote for you (with slight preference for V/VC debate).
 * I default to Util if either (1) no standard extended (2) no arguments extended to support standard. (though this can be swayed by argument)
 * If no offense extended at all, I err Aff (that being said, I can be swayed by arguments)