Mehta,+Anurag

I have judged over a dozen regional and national circuit tournaments (~100 flights), but I have never been a debater myself. I have learned that I have a strong preference for the traditional style of debate because it's what I can readily understand and flow properly. I am okay with moderate speed, but if you truly spread or use progressive debating approaches like Kritiks, theory or plans/counterplans, I may not appreciate many of the technical nuances and that certainly will not be to your advantage.

I look for both content and style - good eye contact, posture, enunciation, delivery are important factors for me (at least as it relates to speaker points), in addition to your framework and arguments (to help you ultimately win the debate). I enjoy evidence or logic based persuasive arguments - broad sweeping generalities don't do much for me. I like it when debaters give me clear warrants, impacts, links and voters. Lastly, please keep it courteous - if I see you being rude or disrespectful to your opponent, that won't win you any points in my book. Have fun and good luck!

*Note - I still see debaters coming through and running counterplans or theory when neither their opponent nor I have a strong hold of those concepts. Please cater to your audience. If your opponent has no idea what approach you are taking and what you are arguing for, that's just no fun. And even if your opponent does know, I don't have the tools or know-how to effectively evaluate you. Keep it traditional, please.