updated nov 2023 for gbx

I have been out of debate (washed/retired) for almost 2 years

this means

1) start your speeches SLOW so i can actually hear them

2) if i dont catch/minunderstand anything because its unclear/makes no sense to me, its your fault

---

yes email chain : arnavdani@gmail.com

Harker 2022

Debated in LD for 5 years

favorite argument I ever read: T/FW vs K aff

policy:

(Case/DA/CP) > T/Theory >> Phil/Tricks > K

99% of my debates have been here - take that as you will

logical argument > unexplained claims, i love some W logic

i also enjoy creative impact turns, examples i have gone for: co2 ag, renewables bad, heg, spark, decol bad->loose nukes

t/theory:

i have had some fun theory debates, some with arguments worth hearing, some not

defaults: NO RVIS, reasonability (debate it out tho)

will be a lot harder to convince me to vote on an rvi

ks:

if it doesn't look like I understand what's going on its because I don't

lbl in the 2nr>>> the big overview

answer this question pls (or question its answer as aff): "lowkey what does the alt do?"

phil/tricks:

i have zero debate experience here - mostly avoided it all my life

surprise me

random:

refer to ayan nath's and anshul reddy's paradigm for some other cool insights ab debate i agree with

About me

Harker ’19

Debated for Harker for 4 years as a 2N, primarily went for policy arguments

Georgetown ’23 (no longer debating)

Coaching for Harker

Add me to the email chain – anusha.kuppahally@gmail.com

Please add info about the round in the subject of the email chain!

TL;DR
You do you, clear judge instruction makes me happy, don’t be rude, tech>truth, and have fun!

I flow on paper, and if you want me to catch more of your arguments, don’t sacrifice clarity for speed and slow down a little.

I fail to see the strategic utility of proliferating bad, generic offcase instead of having a clear, specific strategy. If you would never go for an argument, don’t put it in your 1NC. Quality>quantity.

I will yell clear once but after that, if I can’t understand you, I will stop flowing.

Planless Affs

Strongly neg leaning on T against these types of affs. If you read a planless aff, it will be an uphill battle for me to vote on it. That being said, the aff needs to win that engaging the resolution or being forced to do so is intrinsically bad, and the neg has to win that aff offense isn’t intrinsic to the resolution, and neg offense is. I believe fairness can be an impact, and I find impacts based on the value of clash/engagement with the resolution more compelling than standards based on arbitrary decision making/topic education impacts.

Ks

I’m familiar with generic K’s like security or cap, but less familiar with high theory/identity debates. If I can’t explain it, I can’t vote for it, so make sure to clearly explain your arguments. Links should be based on the action of the plan, have a clear impact, and have a reason why the alt resolves the link. Line by line > long overviews. Death is bad, don’t try to say otherwise.

DAs

Absolutely love specific DAs that interact directly with the aff, and politics is fine too. Make sure to do impact calc and explain how the impact implicates the case debate. Turns case is underutilized so please do it! Framing pages aren’t my favorite, and are often generic/waste of time.

CPs

I default to judge kick. I’m also neg leaning on theory, especially conditionality. I haven’t found a clear and identifiable impact based on conditionality and I find numerical limitations to be arbitrary. Conditionality is a reason to reject the team, anything else is a reason to reject the argument. I love smart PICs and using aff evidence as solvency advocates for counterplans. If you have to read a bunch of definitions to prove that your counterplan is competitive, it will be an uphill battle to convince me to vote for it. However, if you want to read these counterplans or go for theory against these types of counterplans, standards on theory should be effectively compared and impacted out. Please slow down on standards, I flow on paper and will miss what you say if you speed through them.

T

I don’t have much topic knowledge, so be sure to explain acronyms and affs that they would justify. Whoever has the best vision of what the topic should look like will win the debate. Be sure to impact out standards and why your interpretation of the resolution is better for debate. Evidence matters, and if you read more cards about why the aff doesn’t meet your interpretation and why that’s bad, you’re more likely to win.

Misc.

I default to tournament rules for clipping. Please don’t do this, it makes me sad.

If you make the debate unsafe by being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. you automatically lose and get a 0. No exceptions.

LD

My debate experience is mostly in policy, so while I understand the differences in LD, most of what I said above still applies.

Conditionality bad is more winnable in LD to me, and my other opinions on theory still apply.

If your strategy relies on tricks, phil, or frivolous theory, please don’t pref me. I don’t enjoy these debates, don’t know what these things are, and don’t know how to adjudicate them, so both of us will be very unhappy at the end of the debate.

email chain: ayangnath@gmail.com

TLDR: I primarily debated Public-Forum in high school, so I am familiar with debate, but I am not a good judge for topicality/tricks/kritiks. If these arguments are read, I need extensive judge instruction and explanation. I will only vote for arguments I understand and can explain back to you!

Policy Arguments: I understand these and am comfortable judging these debates. Impact turn and DA vs Case debates are debates I enjoy very much. Counterplan debates I understand, but complex process counterplans (e.g. Consult, Delay, etc) I don't understand so please do not read them.

Kritiks: I am familiar with simple identity kritiks (e.g. Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism), but it's been a while since I've debated them. Explaining your theory of the world concisely and clearly is important for me voting for you. Please do impact calculus, root cause, and framing debate to win reasons for why the kritik outweighs or comes before the case.

Topicality/Theory: I'm not good at judging these debates and do not handle theory debates very well. That being said, I'm familiar with common theory arguments (e.g. conditionality, PICs, RVIs). Disclosure and paraphrase theory are fine.

Last but not least, remember to have fun!

updated nov 2023 for gbx

I have been out of debate (washed/retired) for almost 2 years

this means

1) start your speeches SLOW so i can actually hear them

2) if i dont catch/minunderstand anything because its unclear/makes no sense to me,its your fault

---

yes email chain : anshureddy30@gmail.com

Harker 2022

Debated in LD for 5 years

favorite argument I ever read: T/FW vs K aff

policy:

(Case/DA/CP) > T/Theory >> Phil/Tricks > K

99% of my debates have been here - take that as you will

logical argument > unexplained claims, i love some W logic

i also enjoy creative impact turns, examples i have gone for: co2 ag, renewables bad, heg, spark, decol bad->loose nukes

t/theory:

i have had some fun theory debates, some with arguments worth hearing, some not

defaults: NO RVIS, reasonability (debate it out tho)

will be a lot harder to convince me to vote on an rvi

ks:

womp womp

thugs ts out

if it doesn't look like I understand what's going on its because I don't

lbl in the 2nr>>> the big overview

answer this question pls (or question its answer as aff): "lowkey what does the alt do?"

phil/tricks:

i have zero debate experience here - mostly avoided it all my life

surprise me

misc:

fine with inserting rehighlightings

refer to arnav dani and muzzi khan's paradigm for debate arguments I agree with

Deven Shah Harker '22, Stanford '26 deven@devenshah.com

Hi, I'm Deven! I debated LD and formerly policy in high school. I've won several octas bids, NDCA, and twice broken at the TOC. I read everything from cybernetics to agenda politics.

I appreciate debates that involve substantive clash, where both teams forward good, clear, rejoining arguments from the start. This means I am bad for most theory, "tricks," arguments designed to confuse, strategies that rely on proliferating arguments instead of advancing a few good ones, etc.

Least favorite phrases: "LARP," "evaluate the debate after x speech," "Colt Peacemaker," "Nebel T," "disclosure is racist," "theory double-bind," "give me a 30."