Bharadhwaj,+Aadi

I have judged debate for 3 years now, both on the local and national circuits.

Here are a few things you should know about me:

1. Speed On a scale of one to ten, I'd say I can clearly flow and comprehend a 7 speed-wise. Normally my threshold is slightly lower though, mainly because when people spread at high speeds (i.e 5 and 6 words per second) their clarity is terrible. If you are going to spread, make sure you start out slower than your fastest speed and speed up to your top-notch rather than starting at your highest speed and slowing down. Also, make sure you enunciate. Especially slow down for taglines and authors. I will yell clear twice, after than I will stop flowing all together. Also, if you are too fast -- which is extremely rare! -- I will yell speed.

2. Theory I am naturally dissuaded by theory arguments, because they are almost always an abusive way for the negative to win. I have and will vote off of theory if you show a clear link story to abuse. I won't vote off of plans-bad or other bullshit theory, where there is no abuse what-so-ever. Also, I am more inclined to vote for standards of quality of ground rather than quantity. If you prove a 2-1 ground-skew, tell me why that ground is important to you winning. Tell me why the quality of that ground is necessary (i.e. turn-ground is necessary because I can't prove terminal defense on X because of Y, and thus turn ground is the only way to refute X). Also, I naturally default to reasonability, if you tell me why I should accept competing interps, I will accept it.

3. Truth-testing I naturally default to truth-testing, if you want to run other paradigms, just warrant it and I'll accept it.

4. Kritiks I have an will vote on Ks, but I am not all too knowledgeable about critical literature. Slow down for the important warrants and analytics of the cards, clearly explain the link in common language, and make sure to show why the K isn't nonunique.

5. Philosophy I saved the most important part for the end. I know the difference between deontology, util, contractarianism, etc. But I am not omniscient. I don't clearly know the different caveats of Hobbes versus Gauthier or Etzioni versus Sandel. If you are running an author-specific ethic, make the distinction of that author clear to me. Also, make sure you slow down for deep philosophical cards. I am not the best judge to run deep PoMo on or anything of the sort. I will accept any argument, but if you speed through the necessary analytics of how the ethic functions in the round, it might blow over my head. Make sure you clearly tell me how your ethic functions in the round and what your philosophical position is.

6. Extensions If you don't extend a claim, warrant, and impact I won't give credence to your card/argument/etc. Albeit, I will give you more leeway for dropped stuff, but if it is under contention, make sure to extend all of it, not just "Extend Kant 1", but "Extend Kant 1, which tells you that the categorical imperative exists because all rational thinkers would think this way, and thus everyone must be treated as ends in themselves".

Overall, I'll vote for the path of least intervention. You tell me why you win, and if it matches my flow, you will clearly be winning and I'll vote for you.

Speaks: I generally give 28/28.5s. To get better speaks:

Speak clearly Explain your cards to me in plain english Make link-sotries obvious Take smart, tact decisions -- like dropping your ethic and winning on theirs, going all out on one SUPER IMPORTANT argument rather than covering everything, dropping muddled areas of debate to exploit where you are clearly winning regardless. Crystallizing and layering your voting issues Resolve the debate for me instead of making me work harder. Double-binds!!! <-- they make your analytic look super intelligent.
 * Dos:**

Be a bitch during CX Treat your opponent as stupid Engage in pointless theory Time-suck your opponent when you are clearly winning Favor judge-intervention engage in needless semantics debate
 * Don'ts:**