Skip header content and main navigation Binghamton University, State University of New York - Patrick
Banner Brandon Evans Brittney Bleyle Trevor Reddick Phillip George Sonya Robinson Maneo Choudhury Daniel Friedman Joe Leeson-Schatz Anna Pinchuk Masakazu Kurihara Joshua Frumkin

Binghamton Speech & Debate

Saianurag Karavadi

Saianurag Karavadi
General Information
Name: Saianurag Karavadi
Affiliation: New York University
Join Time: June 26, 2020 at 05:19PM EST
Send Message: You must Create an Account and Log-In to message users.
Debating Statistics
Wins: 0 (0 are Byes)
Losses: 0 (0 are Forfeits)
Average Points (Out of 30): 0 (0 total)
*Opponent Wins: 0
*Opponent Points: 0
Judging Statistics
Total Rounds Judged: 1
Average Points Given (Out of 30): 17.6
Voted Proposition In: 100% of rounds
Voted Opposition In: 0% of rounds
Average Length of Notes (Characters): 1048 (1048 total)
Current: None

Bearcat Open (Grades K-12)


*Does not count opponents in bye or forfeit rounds.

About Me: I am a rising sophomore at New York University studying English. I debated LD for four years in high school, with numerous top 10 speaker awards, 9 career bids, and a TOC elim round appearance. I am also the secretary of the NYU CEDA-Policy Debate Team and I competed in college policy for NYU last fall where I championed the Rochester Invitational and won top 5 speaker awards at regional tournaments. I also have extensive experience coaching both LD and policy -- my students have reached numerous bid rounds and late elims of bid tournaments, and have qualled to the TOC. I also have judged over 100 rounds in LD and Policy combined, and have experience navigating and judging online debates.
Judge Philosophy: They/Them pronouns


Good luck and do your best!!

You do you and I'll do my best — I’d much rather you read your tricks aff than try to please me with a horrid k round (especially because I don't care what you read as long as you win it and you're not actively violent). I'll aim to be as tab as I can -- I appreciate judge instruction, clarity > speed, and clear framing -- but regardless, tech > truth and I will not do work for you. I also have a ton of appreciation for almost every form/style of debate in LD and policy so just go for it and make sure you impact things out and write a ballot story.


My approach to rounds has always been who do I need to do the least work for. That means you’re always better off with more judge instruction, clear weighing, impact comparison, and strong line by line as well as overview analysis. That’s obviously a lot and LD rounds are short af, so prioritize issues and collapse in later speeches. I am more than willing to vote on a priori’s, impact turns, independent voting issues, etc. — just make them clear, warrant them, and don’t leave me with a ton of questions at the end of the round. I also think that, because of my background and how I’ve thought about debate, that I default comparative worlds. Given that, I will err tech > truth — I think I probably have a relatively high threshold for warrants, which means quality > quantity. I don’t see myself really reading through evidence or revisiting your docs to find args — it’s your job to do that work for me.

Also, please have some way to filter impacts or frame the round — this can be anything from a starting point, a ROTB, a standard, a value criterion, or whatever you wanna call it — just tell me how to evaluate the round and/or do lots of weighing.
Connect with Binghamton:
Twitter icon links to Binghamton University's Twitter page YouTube icon links to Binghamton University's YouTube page Facebook icon links to Binghamton University's Facebook page Pinterest icon links to Binghamton University's Pinterest page

Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by: