Vignesh Ramesh Paradigm

Last changed 1/12 2:32P EDT

Vig Ramesh

vigneshneel@gmail.com

Debated at Alpharetta High School Policy - 4 years

General Philosophy:

To me the only rules of debate are the time limits for speeches & prep. Other than that, I generally let the debaters decide what the round should be about and what factors to evaluate when deciding the ballot. If no such guidelines are established in the debate then I tend to default to the standard offense/defense paradigm. Also it goes without saying that if you are disrespectful or rude I will not look upon such behavior favorably.

Argument Specifics:

Case/DA's

Love debates that boil down to these because they are so rare to see (at least that was the case when I used to debate). I don't have any specific preferences here, just argue what you are comfortable with well and I'll be happy.

Politics

No Preferences, open to most arguments including theory.

K's

I was never much of a K debater and am likely unfamiliar with the material surrounding your favorite K (except Capitalism because America). I'm not bringing this up to dissuade you from running one, but just be aware that you may have to do more work establishing your position here if you want me to follow along. Clarity is paramount.

T's

I WAS however very much a T debater and AM familiar with most of the arguments surrounding this topic. I would say that I am very open minded to T debates and will consider most arguments here that other judges might outright dismiss. That being said, you still have to convince me (and this is very much the lens in which I view T debates) that the topic is better serviced by your interpretation of it because of x, y, z etc. If you do this well, you have a shot at winning debates.

CP's

Again no real special preferences here. These debates usually come down to a few questions for me:

1.) Can the CP solve all or parts of the Aff?

2.) Does the CP avoid the DA?

3.) Do the parts of the aff that are not solved by the CP outweigh the DA?

The third question being the most important one and likely the one on which I'll judge the debate on. Oh yeah and then there's

4.) Theory

I think Theory is strongest when it is situationally aware. For example, arguing conditionality bad if the Neg only runs 1 CP isn't a very strong argument and outside of the aff completely conceding it is unlikely to persuade me. However if the Neg runs 3 CP's a Floating PIK, a Consult CP, and a K... well then your argument suddenly has more merit. Like with T, I'm open to these debates and judge from a lens of which interpretation provides a better landscape for debate.

Performance Arguments

Never judged a debate this way. It's not to discourage you, but just be aware I don't have experience evaluating such debates and this could help or hurt you. As stated in my general philosophy, I believe the only real rules in the debate are the speech and prep times. Other than that, have at it.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/19/2019 VCX Quarte Cambridge HS MR Chattahoochee AM Neg Neg on a 2-1
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/19/2019 VCX R4 Johns Creek DS Westminster LS Neg
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/19/2019 VCX R3 Paideia/Westminster HP Northview RJ Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R6 Woodward FC Isidore Newman EP Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R4 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart FM Woodward HO Neg
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R3 Henry W Grady KL Woodward LH Neg
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R2 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart PS Woodward TP Neg
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 LD R1 Auburn MF Mountain Brook DC Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 LD R1 Auburn AA Hoover NA Aff