Last updated: March 10th, 2021.

Alpharetta 20.

Harvard 24.

Email chain: bokildebate@gmail.com

General:

1. I have no topic knowledge.

2. Good debating requires quality evidence; strong, logical explanation; and contextualization.

3. Online debate: please slow down and enunciate more than you normally would.

Specifics:

1. If you read a planless aff or rely on the critique as your primary negative strategy, you should strike me.

a. K Affs: It is near impossible to get me to vote against framework/T-USfg (yes, fairness is an impact).

b. Ks: I don't have anything against Ks themselves, but I do have a substantial preferential bias in favor of policy arguments that will be exceedingly difficult to overcome regardless of good debating. There are much, much better judges for adjudicating K rounds than me.

2. CPs/DAs:

a. CPs: Not a great judge for process CPs, but mostly anything else is fine. If left undebated, I won't judge kick the CP.

b. DAs: Anything works. Politics DAs are too often incoherent.

3. Theory:

a. Conditionality: Good until egregious. Worth noting that I think aff teams rarely capitalize on neg teams' poor defense of condo.

b. States CP, International CP, and Ctrl + f word PICs are all bad assuming even debating. Neg leaning on most other theory.

c. ASPEC is stupid and unwinnable.

4. Not a big fan of T vs. affs with plans. Assuming even debating, reasonability > competing interpretations. Precise, contextual evidence is key to winning these debates, for both the aff and the neg.

5. Case: Not a fan of framing pages. Good case debating will be rewarded.

I HAVE NO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

2A for 4 years at Alpharetta High School

Current student at UGA

put me on the email chain: shlokadanave@gmail.com

tl;dr

We are all here to have fun so make sure to be respectful and enjoy yourself. Death is bad. Racism is bad. Sexism is bad. Anything that seems slightly unethical is Bad. Tech over Truth

Long Version

Case - I love a good case debate. Aff make sure to explain your impacts and if it's a complicated screwed up internal link chain, you are going to have to spend a lot of time on that for me to vote on that. Make sure to have good impact comparison. Neg please don't undercover case just so that you can read like 8 off instead of 6, I end up leaning aff in these types of debates because they have to take the burden to explain their aff and answer all of your off case when you don't even take the time to address their internal links

DA - I have no issues with these. Again make sure to impact things out, i notice that a lot of novices don't do this and it's really important for you to win the link level and the impact level of the debate. This topic doesn't have a lot of good DA's but aff specific Disads are cool. Aff, straight turn it that's fun.

T - I love t debates. Treat this like a DA ans don't just ramble on with a bunch of t buzzwords, make sure to actually explain your impacts. Make sure to be specific on the limits question of the debate because a lot of teams don't end up explaining that well. I default aff on reasonability if not answered.

CP - Aff when they read cheating CP's go for theory, if you do it right I'll vote on it, I really hate voting for cheaty cp's. On another note, treat a CP like they would treat your aff. read DA's read impact turns and extend solvency. conditionally is usually bad but i can be convinced otherwise. Neg, you need to make sure you do comparison on the sufficiency level and also properly answer solvency deficits and DO NOT GROUP PERMS. Do some actual explanation on your answers to each perm and make sure to differentiate them. You can't group PDB with an intrinsic perm.

K - I am not well versed in K literature. I will not vote on anything I don't understand so make sure you explain well. Links need to be contextualized to the aff and not just to their impacts. I'm fine with generics like Cap, Security, and Fem, everything else will need more explanation. I won't vote on anything unethical.

Impact Turns - I actually love impact turns I have no issues with these but no unethical impact turns and make sure you do this right. A lot of novices have confusion on this type of argument but make sure you have learned how to read impact turns before you do it.

Overall - just be nice and make sure you are respectful to everyone, including me and everything will go smoothly.

2N for 3 years at Alpharetta High School

TLDR

We're here to have fun so be assertive but not overly aggressive. Please don't say anything offensive or unethical. Tech over truth and please use email chain if you can -- my email is ishadeshmukh01@gmail.com

Case

Case defense is so important. Aff make sure you explain all your impacts and the internal link chain especially if it's very complicated. I don't think the neg should just undercover case and should still go on case if they go for a counterplan. A debate where the neg gets the aff down to very low probability and weighs their off case against this is very interesting.

Impact Turns

I love these debates especially on this topic with all these bad DAs. Make sure you have quite a bit of evidence if you decide to go for these and know how to explain them very well.

DA

Don't have any issues with these but make sure you focus on the impact level of the debate. Read a lot of evidence, especially in the block so you can pressure the 1AR. I understand the 1AR is a time pressured speech but make sure you answer the turns case arguments. I LOVE PTX but the internal link chains for these disads can be a bit confusing sometimes so make sure you thoroughly explain this in the block. PTX theory isn't a thing -- please don't go for it.

T

I don't think this is great on this topic but I do love T debates in general. Spend a lot of time on the limits question of the debate and don't just spit out a bunch of buzzwords -- explain everything. I default on reasonability if dropped.

CP

CP debates are great but not a fan of process or other abusive CPs and am likely to vote on theory in such cases. Neg - don't group perms and make sure you have a clear net benefit. Aff - make sure you have good solvency deficits, should be well explained but I will read evidence if I have to.

Condo -- I will vote on condo if dropped even if the interp is no conditional advocacies. 2-3 conditional advocacies is fine but I will vote aff if they are able to explain why it's absuive -- make sure your arguments on condo are round specific.

K

fine with these but not the biggest fan so please explain them well. I'm well accustomed with fem, cap, security, but will need more explanation on other Ks.

2N for 4 years at Alpharetta High School

put me on the email chain: sakshideshpande@icloud.com

do not clip

racism, sexism, and death are all bad

do whatever you're good at

time your own speeches and prep

don't reread tag lines, focus on actually explaining the argument

clarity > speed

4th-year debater at Alpharetta (2A)

add me to the email chain: 20vikkumar@gmail.com

1. Do what you are most comfortable with, I will vote on anything that has enough warrants and is extended sufficiently throughout the debate.

2. Be respectful to the other teams and the rooms provided by the school. Bigotry will not be accepted.

3. Do not clip cards.

4. Time your speeches and prep.

5. Clarity over speed.

6. Explain your arguments don't just read the tags

7. Have fun!

alederer621@gmail.com

Debated Policy for 3 years at Alpharetta High School (GA)

Georgia Tech c/o 2022 (Public Policy)

I have judged zero rounds on the immigration topic, so don't assume that I know the acronyms and buzzwords that you'll inevitably spew out at 300 wpm.

I try my best to view each round as a blank slate, and am pretty open to most arguments. With that said, I am less likely to be familiar with critical arguments, so quality articulation will need to be done to persuade me to vote for them. To be honest, T debates aren't my favorite to judge; I default to competing interpretations, but am often persuaded by reasonability. Case lists from both sides in T debates are key.

Also important: I am predisposed to favor consequentialist moral frameworks. I generally think that outcomes matter, and a moral worldview is only as good as the world that results from it. This does not mean you can't win on deontology, as I have voted on these arguments before. You just have an uphill battle if you go with this strategy.

The best debates are high in clash and evidence comparison. Do not underestimate the utility of CX... let's be honest, policy debate is full of contrived link chains and tag lines that have little to do with the text of the card. CX is a great time to point out these inconsistencies and gain ethos in the meantime.

Impact calc is vital. The 2AR/2NR should paint a clear picture of why you get my ballot. Don't be messy. My flow is ultimately what I evaluate in making my decision, so jumping around increases the odds of me missing something that could play a key role in the debate.

Humor can be an effective means of getting across a point. If you make me laugh in the round, your speaker points will be rewarded. Also, if you are somehow able to weave Shrek, Rick and Morty, or the offensiveness/inferiority of pineapple pizza into your speech, I will bump your speaks up by 0.1.

Please add me to the email chain.

Information:

Shivan Moodley

Alpharetta '20, Emory '24

J.W. Patterson Foundation Fellow 2019-2020

shivanmoodley@gmail.com

Currently debating for Emory.

Disclaimer: These are just my general thoughts about debate; anything in here can be changed by the quality of debating done in the round. Tech > Truth, unless you're argument is morally repugnant, racist, or incoherent. I am not as familiar with the specific topic language and/or acronyms so explain them.

K Affs and Framework:

Good K Affs should be related to the topic in some way and have central offense/defense centered around the mechanism defended in the 1AC. I like Framework debates on both sides. My gut reaction is that fairness is an impact but 2Ns are getting worse and worse at explaining why so I can be persuaded otherwise. Teams that impact turn procedural fairness have a better shot at winning my ballot. Larger overviews are acceptable in these debates but do not lose the line by line. I am probably better at judging KAffs vs T over KAffs vs Ks.

K's:

Do not assume I will know your literature base if you are going for high theory or K's that are not commonly read (Capitalism, Security, Settler Colonialism, Antiblackness etc,) then the K will require an extra level of analysis/thesis explanation because I will not vote for arguments I cannot explain back in the RFD. Teams that go the extra step to explain the link-level will be rewarded. This means pulling direct quotes from opponents' evidence, highlighting cards, and pointing out lapses in tags. It truly filters the threshold for the impact and framework debate. In a close debate, I am likely to let the Aff weigh their impacts, but the technicalities of the K can mitigate how relevant the case is - Does the Alt solve the case? Does the K access a specific root cause claim? Does the link turn the case? These are central.

Theory Leanings: Conditionality is good unless it's egregious. 2NC CPs are usually good, especially to get out of add-ons. Creative PICs will be rewarded, but the more generic it gets, the more abusive. Most Process CPs can be beaten by a well-articulated Perm or a heavy theory push.

CPs/DAs/Impact Turns/Case Debate/T:

- CPs - Read them, go for them. Smart, analytical CPs are fun but make sure you have a good defense of them or the threshold for solvency deficits will be low.

- DAs - Turns Case can change the game, but can also easily be answered by smart analytics. Neg teams that have carded turns case need to be handled properly by the Aff. Aff teams should identify the weak spots and exploit them, instead of trying to cover every single portion.

- Impact Turns - Good stuff, can be a game changer for both the Aff and the Neg. Impact Comparison and Evidence Comparison will win these debates so do that.

- Case - Has quickly become my favorite type of debate. Asserting "Presumption" without a clear reason means nothing, explain the reasoning. Neg teams that go the extra step to indict authors, answer specific I/Ls, and read multilayered defense to Aff impacts will make me happy. Aff teams that do not fold, are efficient, and smart on case questions also impress me equally.

- T - I like it a lot when it is done well. Both teams NEED to give me a clear picture of what the topic looks like under their interpretation, I will almost always default to competing interpretations because teams are just bad at going for reasonability these days. Limits are the controlling I/L for the Neg. Aff teams that choose one central piece of offense and explain how that implicates the Limits DA are doing something right.

Speaker Points: I reward clarity, speed, and efficiency. I also reward smart, strategic decisions. I will likely adjust speaker points relative to the tournament and entries. I find myself giving higher speaker points to people who are confident but not cocky, mean, or rude (That will drop your speaks). Also if you are funny, be funny, I like to laugh. If you are not funny, please don't try and make jokes it'll be awkward.

If you disagree or have problems with any decisions I have made or my paradigm, please feel free to ask questions.

Other Things:

- Clipping is maximum penalty.

- Anything unethical is maximum penalty.

- Speed is good, but make sure you are clear or it will be reflected in your speaks.

- Final rebuttals need to answer the key questions of the round - tell me why you win.

- Don't waste time - show up to the round on time, send the chain on time, finish on time.

4 years policy debate at Alpharetta High School

Email: mutyalapranav@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain.

I am okay with anything except for critical stuff. I am not the best judge when it comes to complex critical arguments; with that said, if you do decide to run that in front of me, please do a good job explaining every small detail to me. If I do not understand it, I will most likely not vote on it.

Also 2nr/2ars should do a good job of laying out the debate for me and doing quality impact/link/evidence/etc..analysis and comparisons in front of me. If it is messy, I will try my best to fill in the dots, but more likely than not, I will default to what was said in round.

Experience: I have not judged a single round on the immigration topic. So, just make sure that you are not assuming I know what certain arguments or acronyms mean.

2N for 3 years at Alpharetta HS 

 put me on the email chain: shreyamsachdeva@gmail.com

TLDR: We're all here to have fun so be respectful towards the other team and me. I won't vote on anything unethical (death is bad, racism is bad, and sexism is bad). I'm pretty policy and not well versed in K lit, but I'll vote on anything as long as it is explained well. 

Case: I love a good case debate. Aff explain your impacts and the internal link chain especially if it's complicated. The neg should not undercover case and read a bunch of offcase. The neg should still go on case even if they go for a CP in the 2NR. 

DAs: I love DAs, especially PTX. Neg, be sure to impact things out (especially in novice) and make turns case arguments. Also, explain the link story in the block especially on DAs like PTX. 

T: I don't really like T debates especially on this topic but if you are gonna go for it you have to explain it really well. Neg, don't just spit out a bunch of buzzwords but actually explain your arguments. The limits portion of the debate is really important so spend a lot of time on it. 

K: I love K debates, but I am only familiar with generics like fem, cap, neolib, and security. In order to win the debate, the neg must contextualize the K to the aff. I will not vote on anything unethical.  

CP: CPs are great especially specific ones. The aff can win on CP theory if they impact it out well. If the aff goes for a perm they have to explain how it functions. Neg, answer each perm individually and do some actual analysis on them. 

K affs: I am not very familiar with K literature but am willing to vote on anything that is not unethical. 

2a for 4 years at alpharetta

add me on the email chain saanya.saurabh@gmail.com

do whatever you want

no clipping

don’t be rude

time your own prep and speeches

clarity > speed

yes, you can tag team

most importantly, have fun

2A for 4 years at Alpharetta High School

University of Georgia 2023

put me on the email chain: pooja.udeshi1126@gmail.com

**I haven't debated in awhile so if you read very specific things please explain them in depth.

Short Version:

-I won't vote on anything unethical: death is bad, racism is bad, and sexism is bad.

-I'm mostly a policy debater so I'm not that familiar with K lit but I'm will vote on it if its explained well.

Case:

-the neg needs to spend time on case

-case turns are good

DA:

-I love a good disad debate, but if you're going for the disad you have to explain the link level.

-Subpointing is important and makes it easier to flow.

-If you're going for the DA you have to have compare the impacts to the Aff's.

T:

-I'm not a big fan of T debates, but if you're gonna go for it you have to explain it really well.

-In order to win a T debate the Neg has to explain compare the interps and explain why your's is better.

-You have to impact T out really well to win.

K:

-The neg has to contextualize the K to the Aff in order to win.

-I haven't read a lot of K literature, so you have to explain the K and the impacts to win.

-I won't vote on anything unethical.

CP:

-I love specific CP's

-The Aff can win on CP theory only if they can impact it out.

-If the Aff goes for the perm they have to explain how it would function.

K Affs:

-I'm not very familiar with K literature, but I'm willing to vote on anything that isn't unethical.

siddhartha@svemuri.com

Debated 2014-2018 at Alpharetta High School

General Notes: I haven't yet judged a round on the immigration topic, so please start from the assumption that I have little to no topic knowledge. I want to see a clean, organized debate with great clash and in-depth explanations of arguments from both sides. I am generally open to any argument, but I have a few predispositions that I'll cover below. Keep in mind that those predispositions will only help you if you call your opponents out on things they do wrong and actually answer arguments.

T/Theory: I prefer reasonability just because I've seen teams use T and theory way too often as a means to get out of actually engaging an opponent's case/offcase. If you go for T or a theory violation, you should have a good explanation of exactly what the other team did that made the debate unfair and why you're making this the central point of the round. That being said, this is not an excuse to brush off your opponent's theory violations/Topicality arguments, and if you're doing something shady, I won't hesitate to vote on theory.

Condo: I made this separate from the T/Theory section just to make my stance on it clear. Having up to 2 conditional advocacies is fair in my opinion. However, if you run 2 condo with a blatant case of perfcon, then I think it's fair for the aff to make it an issue, especially if you're using their answers to one of your advocacies to generate offense for the other one. If you're using 3 or more condo, you're playing with fire.

CPs: I like counterplans, but not as much if you're basically just stealing the aff and generating a disad off of a tiny part you changed to make it competitive (consult/process CPs). However, if the aff says to do x, y, and z but you want to use a CP that says only do x and y and make a disad off of z, then go for it. I really like advantage counterplans, so feel free to use those.

Ks: I don't like it if you're just stealing the aff through a PIK or if you get wishy-washy with the alt and end up changing what it is throughout the debate. If you're running a K, you should have specific links to the aff and a clear explanation of your alternative and how it generates uniqueness for your links. I tend to like Ks that attack the epistemology of aff like the security K. In terms of ontological and identity Ks, I'm not very well-versed in the literature, so you'll have to explain them very well. Also, those Ks really should have clear, specific links to the affirmative, otherwise it seems to me like this K is the only thing you came into this round ready to go for and you didn't plan on engaging the affirmative. If an affirmative is unfair enough that you can only use a generic K as an answer, that's probably a sign you need to go for T.

Non-resolutional affs: I generally believe the resolution should be the starting point for the debate. I don't mean to discourage you if you have an aff that you really want to read, but if your opponent knows how to properly leverage framework or T, you can expect an uphill battle.

Disads: I like a good old case vs DA debate. What makes disads stand out to me is specific links and a realistic internal link chain. If you are aff and you see a ridiculous DA, rip it apart and show me how absurd it is. If you're neg and going for a DA, make the story of the DA clear and show how the aff will absolutely cause it to happen.

Case: Same as the DA section, great affs have a well thought out internal link chain. Make sure the story of the aff is clear and use it to increase the probability of your impacts happening. If you're neg, explaining how ridiculous the story of the aff is using solid evidence and common sense will defang it and make it easy to beat with your offcase.