Jayaraman,+Avi

I competed all over the circuit from 2006-2009. I coached from 2009-2012. I've judged sporadically since then. My paradigm was longer once, but now this is really all I would like to see:

- Run topical arguments. If your opponent's arguments do not impede on your ability to run your arguments and you run a frivolous theory position, I'll give you very bad speaker points. If you run theory as a time suck but then win the round off something else, you'll get a low-point win.

- If you are running a weird, counterintuitive philosophy position that has absolutely no real world implications and uses verbose rhetoric, you will need to slow down quite a lot. If you end up running theory, do the same; when every sentence you read is a warrant, you probably don't want me missing much.

- As long as you're not going through theory shells and obscure philosophy at blistering speeds, **I will be able to handle your top speed if you are clear //and slow down when reading author// //names//**.

- Aside from my preference to not listen to bad theory arguments, I'm a pretty tab judge. I like arguments that are well-warranted and can serve multiple functions within a round. I like technically adept debaters who use those skills to bolster the quality and quantity of their arguments rather than to confuse their opponents. I like debaters who are able to strategically deconstruct their opponent's arguments on multiple levels, and also those who are able to effectively execute unorthodox strategies.

- Don't be a dick. Seriously. If your opponent runs a bad argument, I expect you to unleash a firestorm of verbal abuse **at the argument, not at the person**.

- Ask whatever questions you want before the round - I promise I don't bite.