Patwardhan,+Tejal

Update for Harvard 2018: I'm a few years out, which means it is especially important to slow down on taglines, theory interps, and analytics, and to explain new jargon. I appreciate sass and humor more than I used to--have fun in your round and I will too!

I debated for four years on the LD circuit and qualled to TOC my senior year. I now debate in college.

Fwk: 1 - 2 K: 1 - 2 LARP: 2 - 3 (or higher if the pool is bad) Theory: 4 - S
 * Cheat Sheet **

My paradigm is a description of my defaults. That said, I try to be as non-interventionist as possible and will vote on any argument made on the flow; this is just how I’d vote absent argumentation for a specific paradigm. Ks/LARP/framework/theory are all fine. I’ll basically vote on anything if extended, but I’d rather listen to nuanced critical or substance-heavy debates over a battle of spike extensions. I default comparing worlds, no RVIs, prefiat comes before postfiat, drop the arg on theory, and drop the debater on T (but am open to other interpretations of T, especially with regards to non-topical Ks). Terminal defense exists but I prefer to vote on risk of offense rather than presumption. I’m very amenable to ROTB/ROTJ arguments. Speed is fine. Slow down on short analytics and taglines. I won't vote on arguments I didn't hear the first time you made them. Extensions should at least have author names and taglines. If a card or a blip is super important, I’d prefer if it’s framed as such when it’s introduced. My favorite rounds are when you respond to a K with a K, a plan with a CP/DA, or a framework with a framework; engaging with arguments on the same layer as your opponent makes the round more interesting and I'll reward your speaks for doing this. If you sit down early or make the round shorter in any way, I'll boost your speaks. If you make me laugh, I’ll boost your speaks. If you make smart, substantive arguments, I’ll boost your speaks. Prep time starts when your opponent hands you the evidence you asked for. Compiling a speech doc for your opponent won't count as prep time, but I'll be less lenient with this if you are being egregious; learn how to make a speech doc so the round runs as smoothly as possible. Disclosure is important, but going for disclosure theory probably isn't the best strategy in front of me. I flow on my computer. Sitting or standing are both fine. I’m more likely to vote for you weigh and impact as much as possible, and if you explicitly tell me what the RFD for your side would look like. Feel free to email or FB message me if you have any questions.
 * General:**
 * Speed:**
 * Extensions:**
 * Speaks:**
 * Evidence/Prep:**
 * Misc:**

tejal_patwardhan [at] college.harvard.edu


 * Be nice and have fun!**