Hi everyone! I competed in speech & debate for 5 years, mainly in Original Oratory and Congressional Debate. I attended the TOC 2x, the NSDA tournament 2x, and lots of other invitationals throughout my 5 years, so I understand where you all are coming from and the work you go through to prepare for these tournaments! Here's how I judge rounds in the following events:

For all events at any point during the round, if you say/imply anything derogatory, discriminatory, or intolerant, I will drop you off of my ballot.

Speech

Original Oratory was my primary event, so I’m extremely familiar with it!

In all original events, please display to me your ability to be a good writer and a good speaker. I value speeches with meaningful rhetoric, well-developed arguments, and intentional word choice. I value speakers that are expressive, passionate, and most importantly, THEMSELVES! Please do your best to stray away from the “speech voice” and instead show me YOUR voice.

In scripted events, I’m looking for your ability to be creative! Have fun with it!!

Congressional Debate

This was my foundational event, so I’m very familiar with it — feel free to go all out!!

CONTENT: I value a thorough, nuanced debate with fact-based arguments. Every claim, evidence, and chain of logic you present needs to be rooted in fact from a well-trusted source. I do not tolerate falsified, misconstrued, or distorted evidence at any point during the debate.

SPEAKING: In general, I value all speaking styles as long as you are confident and respectful! I do value speakers that are fluent, passionate, and concise, but know that having these qualities will not compensate for a speech with poor content.

CROSS-EX: Your questions must be intentional and thorough. I do not value seemingly tangential or extraneous questions that fail to add something meaningful to the debate.

Above all, with this event, I value your ability to prove to me that you are in a DEBATE. Your speech should include plenty of clash and be adaptive to the content of the round.

Public Forum & LD

SPEED: I will not flow if you spread. I cannot be convinced of your argument if you’re speaking at an incomprehensible speed.

SPEAKING POINTS: I start at around 28-29. I’ll move you up if you’re great and move you down if you’re not!

CONTENT: Similar to my paradigm for Congress, please have thorough, nuanced arguments with fact-based evidence. Every claim, evidence, and chain of logic you present needs to be rooted in fact from a well-trusted source. I do not tolerate falsified, misconstrued, or distorted evidence at any point during the debate.

CX: Please be intentional and ask GOOD QUESTIONS.

I debated for Dougherty Valley High School in LD in California. I now debate APDA for Penn. My views on debate and paradigm were influenced by Arjun Tambe (from who I took parts of this paradigm) and Kavin Kumaravel, so you should check out their paradigms. This paradigm is a work in progress, so please ask questions.

Add me on the email chain: vikramb03@gmail.com

General

• I want the debate space to be safe for all participants– if there’s anything I can do as a judge to help with that, please let me know, either before the round or by emailing me.

• On that note, I think that content warnings are important and should be used

• Good with speed (I will yell slow or clear if I can’t understand)

• offense/defense default, usually unconvinced by truth testing

• Not a fan of the presumption and permissibility debate, and paradoxes

• Not a fan of skep or extinction/death good

Defaults - not preferences you can change them if you make the argument

• Comp worlds

• Judge kick good

• Argument quality matters, not just the extent to which an argument is answered. Bad arguments are less likely to be true, and dropped arguments aren’t 100% true. Similarly, framework is impact calculus – it makes certain impacts more or less important, not the only impacts that matter.

• I love smart cross-apps and you don't need to do much work to justify why you get to c/a things from one flow to another

• I think Terminal defense exists

• Card clipping will result in a loss 20

DISCLOSURE

• If you open-source with highlighting, and have correct cites in the cite box, and show me before the RFD (after the 2AR), I will increase your speaks by 0.2

T/THEORY

• have good evidence with an intent to define and exclude, offensive/defensive caselists, etc.

• I won’t evaluate the debate before the 2ar even if a theory spike is dropped

• Default competing interps

• Not a fan of friv theory

• A good theory debate (i.e. going for it) justifies the risk of offense versus the risk of ‘over-punishment’ by voting on theory.

KRITIKS

• ideally my threshold for a good kritik is one that is as tailored to the aff as the aff is

• I like the security K because I dislike shoddy Affs with poor evidence quality

• I’m usually skeptical of pomo ks that aren’t tailored to the aff

• good K debate=having impacts for your links, having links to the plan (not necessary but recommended), knowing how the alt works, not being evasive in CX, not relying on framework to win you the round, doing impact calc and explaining why the K outweighs the case and not just saying util bad, and answering the case

• links of omission are rarely links and the perm resolves them

• I am very persuaded by particularity arguments (the Aff should make the debate about the Aff, not the K)

• I love when the aff/neg makes a smart double turn based on the underpinnings of the lit base

• ROB/ROJ is an empty term– you can answer the framing question without saying that exact phrase/having a counter ROB

• My threshold for voting on the K becomes substantially lower when alt solves case is explained

• I love topic-specific Ks with topic-specific links-- your speaks will be greatly rewarded for a smart strat

FRAMEWORK

• I find framework very convincing, especially movements, but also fairness. I find it hard to ever vote for something that advocates as unfairness as something good

• Have a good TVA

K AFFS

• My favorite type of K aff is one that critically examines the topic and critiques in the 1ac why the topic is insufficient, as opposed to generic K affs that critique debate as a whole and affs that aren’t a critique of any system but only a counter-methodology.

• K affs need to explain the tangible benefits of voting aff

• I have voted against framework many times, and the best responses in my opinion are ones that get to the heart of the FW debate, about which discourse is best. I dislike ‘tricky’ K answers to FW, like “limits is a prison” or having 5 CIs like “your def plus our aff”.

• K affs have a higher burden of defending everything in the aff– this includes pics of parts of their philosophy and word pics

• K affs need to prove why they get perms

PHIL/NCs

• Generally convinced by util

• NCs are very confusing to me and I rarely think they hold merit.

• NCs need a CP or sufficient case defense

TRICKS

• I dislike trixs. I think they skirt clash and are bad for debate

Hi! I'm a first year at UChicago and did PF for 4 years at Dougherty Valley High School. My pronouns are she/her/hers. Pls add me to the email chain at rbindlish.29@gmail.com Super quick run down for you: I’m a flow judge (that being said, I don’t really have experience with theory and Ks, so it is probably in your best interest not to run them) who highly prioritizes inclusivity- if you say anything/make arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc I will vote you down even if you are winning the debate. Debate should be fun and it only is when it is educational and safe for everyone participating! More specifics are below. Feel free to message me on facebook/email me if you have any questions!

Big things

1. Collapse!! This makes it easier for both of us when you don’t go for every argument in the round:)
2. Weigh- this can even start in rebuttal, but makes it easier for me as a judge to vote. If you don’t tell me which arguments I have to prioritize, I have to make that choice myself.
3. Clear extensions (only extending your impact is not an extension). Warrant out the most important arguments you’re going for in every speech
4. Second rebuttal should frontline 1st rebuttal +respond to their opponents case. 1st summary doesn’t have to repeat defense that hasn’t been responded to

Evidence:

• Please read cut cards in constructive, not paraphrased evidence
• I will probably call for important/contested pieces of evidence at the end of the round —> if your evidence doesn’t say what you said it did, I will intervene
• Don’t do weird debater math/blow things out of proportion —> if x increases by 1 to 2, don’t say there was a 100% increase in x without saying the sample size

Crossfire:

• Please be civil in grand cross! It’s very useless but majority of the time that’s just because there are 4 debaters screaming at each other
• Don’t exclude people because you want to appear dominant —> try and make it as educational /clarifying for you as possible!
• Besides that, I don’t evaluate crossfire so if you made an important point, bring it up in a speech

Speaker points:

• These are based on what you say more than how you say it
• Being unnecessarily rude and toxic in round will tank your speaks
• Being funny, good weighing and warranting, being respectful are all ways to boost your speaks

About Me

I have been competing in PF and Extemp for 3 years and I've dabbled in impromptu. I have prepped the April topic so I am fairly familiar with most of the arguments.

Paradigm

- I vote purely off the flow

- I am happy to vote off of any argument (tech>truth) as long as it is not blatantly offensive or bigoted as long as it is well explained and warranted

Summary/Focus

- The first speaking team does not need to extend defense that the second speaking team doesn't address in rebuttal. Turns do need to be extended. That being said, if the argument in question is a big issue, it would only help you to extend terminal defense

- Collapsing makes my job as a judge much easier. Please weigh the impacts!! I cannot overstate the importance of weighing. Otherwise it is hard as a judge to choose which impacts are the largest

- If links are not well explained in summary I will not vote off of it even if it is extended in final focus (basically don't blip any links in summary)

Evidence

- I will call for cards if: a debater asks me to; it seems sketchy; if I want it for myself :)

- please pull up evidence in a timely manner

Cross

- I don't flow cross but it will count in your speaks

- remain respectful please :)

General Notes

- Please sign post

- Speed is okay as long as you are clear. I will yell clear if I cannot understand you

- if you make a Hamilton reference I will give you a 30 speaks :)

Please let me know if you have any other specific questions :))

My paradigm is mostly similar to Saad Jamal's:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=70840

Difference:

- I've debated Public Forum and a little parli at Dougherty Valley for 3 years

- I'm not very familiar with K's, theory, and other shells

- Make sure that you flow through everything in summary that you want in final focus. If it isn't in summary, I'm not going to evaluate it.

- I flow on my computer mostly so I can keep track even if you're going slightly fast.

- Bring Cheetos (or other food) and do something funny in your speech for better speaks

September/October:

- I've debated this topic multiple times so I'm comfortable with all the arguments.

Email chain, pre/post-round questions: kabir.dubate.101@gmail.com

If you’re limited on time, do not stress! You'll be fine!

TOC 2021

Congratulations on qualifying for the TOC! I look forward to judging you! I would like to make your final debates of the season as fulfilling as possible, so please let me know if you would like any accommodations. I won't mind if you request to not have an RFD, for example.

General

I competed in Policy and LD Debate for Dougherty Valley High School (class of 2020).

I'm a good judge for strategic and technical debate and will reward pro-gamer moves with high speaks.

I think that debate possesses revolutionary potential. Hard work, research, and the development of technical communication skills around a stasis point of clash (that should probably be guaranteed somehow) are very important requirements for successful high-school debates.

In my first years of circuit debate, I read ridiculous amounts of philosophy, mainly because I liked the edge. Although I have started to spend my time exploring other wonders, I don't think I have fully shaken off my Freirean roots. This information does implicate you; I intend on giving thorough RFDs and will try to fully understand every argument before I evaluate it. I will be glad to give feedback if you ask.

e-Debaters: please record every speech just in case. I flow off your speech, not the doc.

Miscellaneous Preferences

Quality>Quantity. Please collapse in the 2NR/2AR.

Compiling the doc is prep, flashing is not. Please 'clarify your flow' during prep or CX (e.g. "did you read X card?").

I accept spreading but clarity ∝ flow-ability ∝ memory. Please enunciate during online debates.

Hand-waving, grandstanding, etc. is understandable but usually unnecessary. If you don’t have any more doors to close, I would appreciate it if you would finish your speech early.

Please do line-by-line. Your speeches should follow an order. I am a fan of speeches that number arguments.

Evidence Rules

Credible and well-warranted evidence goes a long way. Citations must be complete (author name, title, date, and source if possible) or I will throw the card out. I find epic author qualifications to be quite persuasive, so include them if you want that advantage.

I dislike cards written by former debaters and coaches about debate. They come off as biased because their specificity arbitrarily discredits opposing views. I have also seen them replace student-based research, which I personally found to be one the most rewarding parts of debate.

If you have proof, you should stake the debate on an evidence ethics violation. Whoever's in the wrong gets an L 20.

If I notice (1) missing paragraphs/ellipses (2) miscut/mis-cited evidence, or (3) clipping, you auto-lose, even if no evidence challenge is raised.

My comments on arguments

Plans/CPs

I err against vague plans and counterplans that lack evidence. Debaters can’t define what their texts mean on their own, they need to support their interpretation with cards that comment on “normal means.” Against a vague plan, I would be more persuaded by no solvency and circumvention claims over spec theory shells.

I think the mandates of a plan text and CX clarification are binding. I like it when poorly written plan texts are punished with plan flaws and process counterplans.

To be honest, I think counterplans of all varieties are underutilized. I think my views with T and CP theory balances this for the aff.

Counterplan/competition theory is only persuasive when the affirmative contextualizes the abuse to the way the writing/literature of the topic divides ground.

DAs/CASE/"NCs"

Impact calc is a silver bullet.

I feel like it is much more likely for a plan to be less effective than for it to result in nuclear war or whatever the terminal impact of a DA is. These arguments are more persuasive to me than framing cards.

I prefer LD frameworks that focus on broad questions of ethical significance. I think it’s unnecessarily reductive to condense ethics into a value criterion/standard. For example, I think it’s totally OK to say that “liberty is a side-constraint on the State” as impact framing instead of a standard such as “upholding liberty.”

I tend to find the warrants in cards more compelling than purely analytic frameworks.

The comparative worlds versus truth testing distinction is strictly related to Topicality. All topics seem to make normative claims so the truth-testing paradigm has more in common with comparative worlds than most give it credit for. This implies that you can, in fact, defend the resolution as a “general principle” insofar as you win that (A) that’s what the words of the topic mean and (B) that’s good for debate. The downside to my view is that it validates linguistic tricks and moral skepticism, but these are very easy to answer.

Topicality/Theory/Procedurals

I lean against voting on obviously non-substantial violations of fairness/education. Debaters must provide a compelling abuse story, even if a theory argument is conceded. In other words, I strongly default to reasonability; warrants for competing interpretations reverse this default and oftentimes serve as tiebreakers.

Disclosure is generally good. In disclosure theory debates, I err in favor of the side that is as cooperative as possible. I'm not saying that you should disclose everything that your opponent asks for, but I am saying that both sides should clearly (and politely) attempt to reach a middle ground outside of the round.

Paragraph theory is usually preferable to shells. Debaters tend to blitzkrieg through prewritten theory blocks—please slow down.

In LD, weighing should begin in the 1NC, especially when it comes to overlimiting versus underlimiting.

Good T debates point out how they interact with counterplan ground. Proving why the "AFF is key" is a challenging task that requires a lot of research—I am willing to loosen the grips of the resolutional text if the affirmative puts this into pragmatic consideration. If there is a prep problem in LD, it's because of the wording of the resolutions, not because of the reading of plans.

With that being said, I tend to find interpretations that reflect real-world controversies (the "topic-lit") more convincing than readings that make it easier to debate.

Kritiks

I want to judge these debates more. Please don't make me regret writing this.

Framework—affirmatives should get their case and negatives should get their kritik (unless convinced otherwise). "Fiat is illusory" is impact framing rather than an absolute disqualification of the 1AC.

You should have a link. Generous link explanations can compensate for poor argumentation elsewhere. Kritiks apply to many affs in debate (especially LD), but debaters tend to be horrible at thinking of links.

Many 2NRs lack aggressive impact calculus despite the fact that common K impacts tend to have stronger internal links to extinction than many AFFs do.

Presentation and evidence quality matter. You should try to explain your argument in every opportunity you get, rather than be evasive.

"Tricks" are only stupid if they are under-explained. Floating PIKs are almost always invalid and new 2NR arguments.

Email chain, pre/post-round questions: kabir.dubate.101@gmail.com

If you’re limited on time, do not stress! You'll be fine!

TOC 2021

Congratulations on qualifying for the TOC! I look forward to judging you! I would like to make your final debates of the season as fulfilling as possible, so please let me know if you would like any accommodations. I won't mind if you request to not have an RFD, for example.

General

I competed in Policy and LD Debate for Dougherty Valley High School (class of 2020).

I'm a good judge for strategic and technical debate and will reward pro-gamer moves with high speaks.

I think that debate possesses revolutionary potential. Hard work, research, and the development of technical communication skills around a stasis point of clash (that should probably be guaranteed somehow) are very important requirements for successful high-school debates.

In my first years of circuit debate, I read ridiculous amounts of philosophy, mainly because I liked the edge. Although I have started to spend my time exploring other wonders, I don't think I have fully shaken off my Freirean roots. This information does implicate you; I intend on giving thorough RFDs and will try to fully understand every argument before I evaluate it. I will be glad to give feedback if you ask.

e-Debaters: please record every speech just in case. I flow off your speech, not the doc.

Miscellaneous Preferences

Quality>Quantity. Please collapse in the 2NR/2AR.

Compiling the doc is prep, flashing is not. Please 'clarify your flow' during prep or CX (e.g. "did you read X card?").

I accept spreading but clarity ∝ flow-ability ∝ memory. Please enunciate during online debates.

Hand-waving, grandstanding, etc. is understandable but usually unnecessary. If you don’t have any more doors to close, I would appreciate it if you would finish your speech early.

Please do line-by-line. Your speeches should follow an order. I am a fan of speeches that number arguments.

Evidence Rules

Credible and well-warranted evidence goes a long way. Citations must be complete (author name, title, date, and source if possible) or I will throw the card out. I find epic author qualifications to be quite persuasive, so include them if you want that advantage.

I dislike cards written by former debaters and coaches about debate. They come off as biased because their specificity arbitrarily discredits opposing views. I have also seen them replace student-based research, which I personally found to be one the most rewarding parts of debate.

If you have proof, you should stake the debate on an evidence ethics violation. Whoever's in the wrong gets an L 20.

If I notice (1) missing paragraphs/ellipses (2) miscut/mis-cited evidence, or (3) clipping, you auto-lose, even if no evidence challenge is raised.

My comments on arguments

Plans/CPs

I err against vague plans and counterplans that lack evidence. Debaters can’t define what their texts mean on their own, they need to support their interpretation with cards that comment on “normal means.” Against a vague plan, I would be more persuaded by no solvency and circumvention claims over spec theory shells.

I think the mandates of a plan text and CX clarification are binding. I like it when poorly written plan texts are punished with plan flaws and process counterplans.

To be honest, I think counterplans of all varieties are underutilized. I think my views with T and CP theory balances this for the aff.

Counterplan/competition theory is only persuasive when the affirmative contextualizes the abuse to the way the writing/literature of the topic divides ground.

DAs/CASE/"NCs"

Impact calc is a silver bullet.

I feel like it is much more likely for a plan to be less effective than for it to result in nuclear war or whatever the terminal impact of a DA is. These arguments are more persuasive to me than framing cards.

I prefer LD frameworks that focus on broad questions of ethical significance. I think it’s unnecessarily reductive to condense ethics into a value criterion/standard. For example, I think it’s totally OK to say that “liberty is a side-constraint on the State” as impact framing instead of a standard such as “upholding liberty.”

I tend to find the warrants in cards more compelling than purely analytic frameworks.

The comparative worlds versus truth testing distinction is strictly related to Topicality. All topics seem to make normative claims so the truth-testing paradigm has more in common with comparative worlds than most give it credit for. This implies that you can, in fact, defend the resolution as a “general principle” insofar as you win that (A) that’s what the words of the topic mean and (B) that’s good for debate. The downside to my view is that it validates linguistic tricks and moral skepticism, but these are very easy to answer.

Topicality/Theory/Procedurals

I lean against voting on obviously non-substantial violations of fairness/education. Debaters must provide a compelling abuse story, even if a theory argument is conceded. In other words, I strongly default to reasonability; warrants for competing interpretations reverse this default and oftentimes serve as tiebreakers.

Disclosure is generally good. In disclosure theory debates, I err in favor of the side that is as cooperative as possible. I'm not saying that you should disclose everything that your opponent asks for, but I am saying that both sides should clearly (and politely) attempt to reach a middle ground outside of the round.

Paragraph theory is usually preferable to shells. Debaters tend to blitzkrieg through prewritten theory blocks—please slow down.

In LD, weighing should begin in the 1NC, especially when it comes to overlimiting versus underlimiting.

Good T debates point out how they interact with counterplan ground. Proving why the "AFF is key" is a challenging task that requires a lot of research—I am willing to loosen the grips of the resolutional text if the affirmative puts this into pragmatic consideration. If there is a prep problem in LD, it's because of the wording of the resolutions, not because of the reading of plans.

With that being said, I tend to find interpretations that reflect real-world controversies (the "topic-lit") more convincing than readings that make it easier to debate.

Kritiks

I want to judge these debates more. Please don't make me regret writing this.

Framework—affirmatives should get their case and negatives should get their kritik (unless convinced otherwise). "Fiat is illusory" is impact framing rather than an absolute disqualification of the 1AC.

You should have a link. Generous link explanations can compensate for poor argumentation elsewhere. Kritiks apply to many affs in debate (especially LD), but debaters tend to be horrible at thinking of links.

Many 2NRs lack aggressive impact calculus despite the fact that common K impacts tend to have stronger internal links to extinction than many AFFs do.

Presentation and evidence quality matter. You should try to explain your argument in every opportunity you get, rather than be evasive.

"Tricks" are only stupid if they are under-explained. Floating PIKs are almost always invalid and new 2NR arguments.

Email: arjun2garg@gmail.com

Dougherty Valley High School 2021

General

- tech > truth

- compiling the doc is prep, flashing is not

- arguments (even dropped ones) must have a claim, warrant, and impact

- won't vote for arguments I don't understand

- CX is binding

- if online, locally record speeches in case of a tech problem

Evidence

- citations should be complete and ideally include author qualifications

- don't use brackets except for offensive language or to expand numbers

- strongly dislike cards written specifically for debate (by former debaters, coaches, etc.)

- an evidence ethics violation (clipping, missing paragraphs/ellipses, starting or stopping in the middle of a paragraph, or mis-cited evidence) with proof is a stake the round issue and L 20 for whoever is wrong

Disadvantages

- went for these almost every round

- good impact calculus decides these debates

- should concede defense to properly kick

Counterplans

- love smart and creative counterplans so please read them

- ideally should include how it solves the aff in the 1NC in LD (either with a solvency advocate or analytically)

- competition arguments > theory

- default judge kick

Theory

- default reasonability

- counterplan theory is usually only a reason to drop the argument

- disclosure is good, but the more trivial the interp the harder to win

- RVIs are bad, but you should answer them

- if the 2NR is all in on theory the 2AR does not need to extend case

Topicality

- really enjoy these debates

- weighing is essential

- standards should be filtered through predictability

- evidence comparison is underutilized

- "semantics first" is unpersuasive

Kritiks

- good K debate is rare—its often just buzzwords and under-explained nonsense

- links should be specific to the aff, ideally to the plan

- am persuaded by particularity

- usually don't understand how the alt works or solves

- the aff should probably get to weigh the case

K affs

- would prefer if you defend the topic, but will vote for it if won

- the neg should answer the case, even if going for T

- TVAs are strategic, but not necessary

- neg strategies like impact turns/DAs are pretty epic

- am not a good judge for K v K debate

Philosophy

- default util

- should thoroughly explain your syllogism

- modesty is persuasive

Misc

- having the email chain set up early will result in high speaks

- clarifying questions outside of CX or prep will result in lower speaks

Add me to the chain: goel.arya24@gmail.com

I competed in LD and Policy for Dougherty Valley for 4 years.

Call me Arya not judge plz.

General Beliefs:

I won't vote on things that happen outside of debate (except for disclosure, need a ss for this ) and won't vote on arguments about a persons appearance.

When I debated, I rlly disliked judges who evaluated arguments as a "wash" bc they were lazy, so I try my hardest to not do this.

Argument preferences: CP + DA >>> by far my fav 2nr, then smartly thought out T args, then Ks and phil.

CP/DA:

Love these arguments and am probably most qualified to judge debates involving these. Here are some general thoughts.

- I'm forgetful, so you'll have to remind me if you want me to judge kick.

- I dont rlly care about condo but try not having more than 2-3

- Love case specific DA's but politics and process cps just work

-

Please weigh. Please. 2nr and 2ar impact calc are not new arguments but the earlier you start weighing the better it is for both me and you.

Judge Instruction is key for close debates and high speaks.

Theory:

Here it is again: I'm not voting on someone's appearance

Defaults: C/I; Drop the arg; No Rvis

-Disclosure is almost mandatory. Most def a hack for disclosure (need a ss) - there is a line though, round report theory or "must use citebox" is frivolous if you opensource with highlighting. The more arbitrary your interp gets, the less likely I care about it.

-I wont vote on args I didn't flow or catch, so if even if your 8 word condo blip is dropped im not going to feel guilty about dropping you. Especially important because online debate is already bad enough without 3 seconds blips.

This doesn't mean you cant read paragraph theory, just that instead of reading 4 3-second blips, spend 15 seconds on one, well warranted arg.

-Counterplan theory other than condo is almost always a question of predictability. The negative should prove that their cp is grounded in the literature and the aff should prove the opposite. Counterplan theory is almost never a drop the debater issue.

Topicality:

Love these arguments when done with lots of good evidence and evidence comparison. So many counterinterps are just cards that say words but don't actually define them, or they're pulled from completely different contexts that make them useless. Thus evidence with intent to define makes me unbelievably happy.

-Not a fan of T args where the only topical aff is the whole res, this means I don't really like Nebel (still will vote on it)

-Semantics and Jurisdiction don't matter a lot in a vacuum but precision can be cool in close debates

-I find myself caring more about strength of internal link than impacts, so please spend a few seconds warranting these outs - for example, in a limits debate, you would do this with a offensive case list.

-A large risk of a limits, probably turns and outweighs everything else.

Kritiks:

In high school, I read a decent bit of literature mostly pertaining to pomo, afropess and set col, but did not personally read these args in debate.

-K affs get perms so you better make those links good.

-People need to go for Heg and cap good more against non t affs

-the smaller the ov and the more the line by line, the happier both me and your speaks get

"I like the security K because I dislike shoddy Affs with poor evidence quality" - Vikram Balasubramanian

- the larger and more complex your theories become, the more you have to warrant them - saying ontology and calling it a day isnt enough.

K-affs:

If you read a performance and forget about it in the 1ar, I'm forgetting to vote for you.

1-off T-fw is viable (and often what I did) but like why? Just read a pik or something else as well

FW is always a question about models of debate, so the 2nr/2ar better explain it to me like I'm a fifth grader

Don't really buy "limits are a prison" type arguments

Movements >= fairness

Philosophy:

I really don't have experience evaluating this kind of stuff, but promise rlly high speaks if you can teach me something about this kind of debate.

-"I defend the resolution but not implementation" and "Ill defend the res as a general principle" aren't real arguments and don't make sense. Either you're defending the whole res, or you read a advocacy text

-Skep is defense unless you win TT.

Default modesty and comp worlds.

-If you give me a headache with tricks I'm nuking your speaks

if your underview is longer than a paragraph I'm going to be grumpy.

Misc:

If you have good disclosure practice lmk and ill bump speaks if i agree.

If the 1nc is all turns and case you start at a 29.5

If I think you're clipping, I'll start following along on the doc. If I catch you clipping, I'll tank your speaks but won't stop the round. I will stop the round if someone accuses (requires recording).

Paradigms of people I (mostly) agree with if you want more info: Kabir, Ansuman, Shikhar, Tristan

Policy Stuff:

I have even less patience for bad theory here than in LD. The only things that rises to DTD are disclosure and condo. That said, Infinite condo seems persuasive to me.

All the stuff above still applies.

Parli Stuff:

I'm comfortable with anything you want to read with the caveat that you warrant your arguments properly and generously - my background is in Ld and policy

You can go as fast as you want - I can keep up as long as you're clear

Due to the nature of Parli topics, I'm a bit more amenable to stupid and friv theory args - you should be able to beat them if you want to win - THAT BEING SAID if thats your main strat - just strike me and save us both

Creative DAs and Cps get xtra speaks - everything else about args applies from above

Made some edits for novice nats lol. I've competed on this topic and probably know the args ur reading. I've competed for about 2 years on nat circ, no real creds tho.

IMPORTANT: Win and weigh the links before the impact scenarios. Take time to break down warrant level clash. Second rebuttal at the very least needs to address turns. Collapse the debate in summary.

Extensions: links + impacts must be in both final focus and summary. Signpost and gimme an off-time roadmap.

Speed: I can handle speed to a certain extent, but it runs the risk of me missing something on the flow. If the round gets too fast for me, I'll clear.

Speaks: Everyone starts at a 28 and then goes up or down. Depends on the concision and strat decisions made in summary and ff.

Homophobic/racist/sexist= tanked speaks and auto dropped ballot

Rude=tanked speaks

Wear what u want, I hate heels too.

Crossfire: idrc put it in a speech

Evidence: The time cap on searching for evidence is 2 minutes. If it isn't found by then I'm striking the card on my flow. If I call for a card, a couple things could have happened

1) Someone in Summary/ff directly asked me to call for it, and it was crucial to the ballot. If I read the evidence and decide it's bad, (misconstrued but not doctored) I won't evaluate it or the argument it made on the flow

2) I'm stealing the card

3) The card is sketch, I'm calling to see if it's doctored. If there's no violation look at 2). If there is a violation (the card's clipped) I'm dropping you and your speaks. PF already has terrible evidence ethics, please don't be a part of that problem.

Dougherty Valley '19 | UC Davis '23 | keshavharanath@gmail.com

I competed for 4 years in mainly Circuit Congress and Extemporaneous Speaking but I have also dabbled in Impromptu.

CONGRESS PARADIGM:

For Speakers:

In a Nutshell: The more memorable (for better) that you are, the higher you will rank.

Congress is a debate event. Unless you are presenting an authorship or sponsorship speech, clash/refutation is a must. I believe that the later you speak in round, the more important refutation becomes. This doesn't mean that you have to refute all minor and major arguments. Rather, the later you present in round, the more I think you have the burden of selectively and strategically refuting. I am a big fan of speakers who crystallize near the end of the round so if you are speaking last or near last, a good crystallization speech is a solid path to getting a higher rank.

When presenting evidence/analysis, a good rule of thumb is to explain relationships as articulately as you can. It is your job, not mine to ensure that your speech makes sense. If I can't understand the logic in your arguments, I won't spend time to try and figure them out. Hard evidence (statistics etc.) from reliable sources is always preferred to anecdotal evidence.

Good one-liners and rhetoric are always appreciated :)

Be as aggressive as you want. I will never judge your speaking style as being too "emotional" or sappy - I care far more about what you are saying than how you are saying it. Just remember that being aggressive does not entail insulting people straight up to their faces.

TL;DR - If you make it easy for me to give you the 1, I will give you the 1.

For Presiding Officers:

If you are fast, fair, efficient and don't make any major errors, you are guaranteed a top 5 rank. If you are exceptional, you are guaranteed a top 3 rank.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM:

I'm not super experienced with PuFo but have judged a few rounds before. Here is my take:

Make sure your arguments are clear and have strong links and properly cited evidence. I do value presentation heavily when evaluating speaks, but will also factor strength and creativity of arguments.

"People have become educated, but have not yet become human.” - Abdul Sattar Edhi.

TLDR;

Do whatever you want, but do impact calculus.

A Little About Me:

I competed for Dougherty Valley High School between 2015 to 2019 in Public Forum and Extemp. It's been a number of years since I was involved in the debate space and I'm sure PF has changed since I left. I am generally okay with any type of argument, but I have limited experience with K's and Theory. You will benefit if you slow down while presenting these types of arguments.

Specific To Stanford 2024:

I am fine with spreading but I would highly prefer you email speech docs to your judge beforehand.

On The Juicy Stuff.

I am a Tabula Rasa (Clean Slate) judge so I will believe anything you tell me, but it needs to be warranted. I try to limit my judge intervention as much as I can, however, I won't be afraid to intervene is if there is no impact calculus in the round. Other than that, I'm fine with any type of argument you throw at me, and you can speak as fast as you want.

I will try to be a visible judge so if I start shaking my head maybe don't go for that argument, but if I am nodding that's probably a good sign. I use my computer to flow. I will yell clear if it is too fast, but my threshold is pretty good, but if you want to full-on spread please flash me the speech doc so I know whats going on.

Tech > Truth.

Time Yourselves.

I evaluate framework and overviews right on top. I love it when I know what impacts are going to be the most important, and which impacts I should prefer. This helps you organize and helps me understand what the narrative of your team is. I love, love, love overviews/underviews and think they make Public Forum Debate interesting.

Please sign post, especially in Summary and Final Focus.

Whatever is in Final Focus must be in Summary, however I am totally ok with you extending defense from rebuttal to final focus if you are the first speaking team. This is because I believe that Public Forum Debate is structurally disadvantaged for the first speaking team. That means first summary obviously needs to have all your offense. I will literally stop flowing if the argument in Final Focus is not in Summary.

I love it so much when teams collapse into two to three issues in Final Focus. I love it when teams blow up impacts in Summary and Final Focus and use the ends of their speeches to do Impact Calculus. This is really important, I NEED good impact calculus to evaluate who I vote for. I need to know why you win on things like Probability, Magnitude, or Time-Frame and I need to know why those are more important than what your opponents are going for. If you don't know what impact calc is do some reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_calculus

I award speaks based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc. I will not be afraid to vote you down and nuke your speaks.

I will always call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. I am bad at remembering tags, but I definitely call for cards.

PLEASE FOLLOW NSDA/CHSSA (Depending on the tourney) EVIDENCE RULES AND HAVE EVIDENCE ETHICS. I need to hear author last name and date in the speech, otherwise its just rhetoric.

On other arguments. I'm totally ok with things like K's, Theory, whatever else but do know that I personally have minimal experience with K's or theory shells so I will need these types of args to be well warranted and explained.

If you have ANY questions about my paradigm or my decisions please do not be afraid to ask.

If you are funny and not offensive, I'll probably up your speaks.

Good Luck!

Also I think the way that I view debate is very similar to Shreyas Kiran, so check out his paradigm if you are bored.

Email me at TheSaadJamal@gmail.com if you have any questions.

(he/him)

- For PF, you can use my partners paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=saad&search_last=jamal

- Competed in PF for 4 years at Dougherty Valley

- I have minimal experience with any type of argument not traditionally run in PF (Ks, theory, etc.).

email: kiranshreyas29@berkeley.edu

Dougherty Valley '20

Email: shravan.konduru4@gmail.com

Debated in LD for 3 years. I have also been to a few policy tournaments.

Hard and Fast Rules

-You must disclose or give cites to me upon request.
-You must make your speech doc during prep time.
-You must be willing to email or flash cases. If your opponent does not have a laptop you must have a viewing computer, pass pages, or lend your opponent your laptop.
-Card clipping or evidence ethics violations result in a loss-20. If you think your opponent has done either of these things, stop the round for an ethics challenge.
-You must have proper cites for your cards (including author name, publication date if available, and source at the least). I will disregard evidence that lacks proper citations.
-Please avoid adding brackets to your evidence. I would prefer if you remove them or at least restrict them to tense, punctuation, and offensive language.

General Beliefs
-I won't vote on arguments I didn't flow, and args I didn't understand will take a very minimal explanation to beat back

-CX is important

-Not a fan of tricks

-Theory: I have a high threshold for voting on theory. There needs to be a substantial violation of fairness and education. My defaults are no RVI, competing interp, and drop the debater. 1 Conditional advocacy is okay, but more than that would make it easier for me to vote for a condo theory shell if read. I think T can be a strategic argument and are sometimes fun debates to watch. There should be a lot if evidence comparison and should be thoroughly impacted out in terms of how the world of your opponent's interp operates and why thats bad.

-Counterplans and disads: My favorite form of debate. Make sure the disad link chain is clear and is impacted out well. Impact calc is very important in the NR. For counterplans, make sure you articulate well why it's competitive and preferable to the affirmative. I don't judge kick, unless I am told to do so.

Kritiks: Not my favorite type of argument to read or debate. If you are comfortable with it, go ahead and read it, but make sure you explain each part of the kritik without trying to flood your opponent with complex jargon. I am not too familiar with different k lit, so it might be in your best interest to limit the k's you read to common ones.

hello! i did pf and currently coach at dougherty valley high school. the tldr is that i'm a flow judge and i really prioritize rounds being educational, inclusive, and fun, but the specifics are below. if you have questions or need anything, let me know or reach out through facebook/email!

- first and foremost, be a nice person! racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, elitism, and exclusion in general suck and i have zero tolerance for it. please also include content warnings for arguments when necessary

- the keys to my ballot are collapsing, proper extensions, and weighing/comparative analysis — i love love love when when weighing is prioritized and treated like any other argument that needs warranting and clash

- second rebuttal should at least respond to all offensive arguments from first rebuttal; first summary doesn't have to repeat defense that wasn’t previously frontlined

- i care a lot about properly representing evidence and will intervene here if necessary — i also like when people read cut cards instead of paraphrasing

- progressive arguments are fine/welcomed as long as you don’t debate them in an exclusionary way, but i have limited experience debating them so please explain things

- i start speaks at a baseline of 28.5 and predominantly base them on technical skill, but they will be higher if you don't paraphrase or if you make the round more interesting and fun!

- add me to the email chain: vivikuang8052@gmail.com

good luck and have fun!

2023 Update - It's been a while since I've judged, but I've noticed that the quality of evidence has dropped significantly. Going forward, I will be reducing speaks substantially for poor evidence. I also think there's not enough specificity in argumentation. Debaters will say "x piece of evidence is fantastic and says EU unity is low", but won't point out the warrants in the evidence for why EU unity is low. This also means I rarely hear debaters doing any good evidence comparison, which makes for messy debates and difficult decisions. Finally, please don't put anything in the 1NC that you can't give a 2NR on. I've judged too many debates already where an off is completely dropped but the 2NR goes for something else.

Email - kavindebate@gmail.com

Background

I debated in LD for Dougherty Valley High School for 4 years.

General

-good with speed

-SLOW DOWN ON THEORY AND T—they are especially hard to flow at top speed and in an online format

-slow down in the 2NR, especially at the beginning

-offense/defense (extremely unconvinced by truth testing)

-will not vote on arguments I don't understand

-2AR and 2NR impact calc are not new

-CX is binding

-compiling doc is prep, but flashing is not

-disclose (open source is good)

-ev comparison is important and will give you better speaks

-all arguments (even dropped ones) need a warrant

-clipping and ev ethics violations will result in a loss

-scrolling ahead in the doc is cheating

DA/CP/Case

-enjoy this type of debate and was what I went for almost every round

-process cps/PICs are good so please read them in front of me

-consult cps (most of the time) are not good

-sufficiency framing is convincing

-politics DAs are good when they make sense and usually need to be coupled with a CP to beat a competent Aff

-for Affs, I like plans and enjoy small Affs—please have good evidence

-soft left and extinction impacts are both fine—I don't really have a preference

-heavily dislike Affs with large theory underviews/spikes

Kritiks

-ideally my threshold for a good kritik is one that is as tailored to the aff as the aff is

-I like the security K because I dislike shoddy Affs with poor evidence quality

-this goes for all Ks and especially security, but you need to answer the case or you'll almost certainly lose

-I'm extremely skeptical of pessimism arguments and I think pomo is often (underexplained) nonsense. K debate is usually just a bunch of buzzwords.

-good K debate=having impacts for your links, having links to the plan (not necessary but recommended), knowing how the alt works, not being evasive in CX, not relying on framework to win you the round, doing impact calc and explaining why the K outweighs the case and not just saying util bad, and answering the case

-links of omission are not links and the perm resolves them

-I am very persuaded by particularity arguments (the Aff should make the debate about the Aff, not the K)

-affs get to weigh the case—the K's impacts are consequential too and consequences prove the goodness of reps

-most Ks don't have a link and the alt fails—the Aff is probably a good idea

-if you win an extinction impact, the case should outweigh

K Affs/Framework

-please defend the topic, but if you win your Aff (and I understand what the offense is), I will vote for it

-no, limits is not a prison—metaphors like these are meaningless and don't constitute real arguments

-many K affs appeal to various ephemera as ways to escape the question of T—these include buzzwords like “role of the ballot” that don’t actually explain what they’re winning, or concessions from the aff that are clearly irrelevant

-KvK debate is extremely difficult to evaluate usually and the Aff will probably win on the perm

-the impacts most convincing to me on framework are movements/skills

Theory

-default is reasonability, no RVIs

-condo, PICs, process CPs are probably good

-consult is not good

-not a fan of friv theory

-debaters should do weighing on standards, not voters

-debaters should make arguments about what an interpretation justifies to answer things like friv theory

Topicality

-I really like well-fleshed out interpretations and really enjoy judging T debates

-have good evidence with an intent to define and exclude, offensive/defensive caselists, etc.

-do weighing

Philosophy

-very persuaded by util

-please explain your syllogisms clearly if not util

-I doubt any serious ethical theory would think extinction isn't a bad thing

-couple your NC with a CP or answer the case

Tricks

-please don't read them

-most tricks don't have a warrant or make enough sense for me to vote on them

Misc

-please be nice to your opponent

-debate should be fun

Dougherty Valley '19

The Ohio State University '23

Add me to the email Chain: lee.8871@osu.edu

he/they

If you are comfortable, please email me a speech doc before each speech. It makes judging so much easier especially on zoom :)

-----------------

FOR yale,

haven't judged in lowkey a minute, be kind. Haven't judged on the topic either so i'm not too familiar with the literature, cards, etc. If there is a problem, make it clear, if an argument doesn't make sense, tell me why.

------------------

I competed nationally in PF and Extemp in HS, did a bit of Congress and LD as well.

I am tabula Rasa, and I'll vote on anything.
I try really hard to be non-interventional, but with more and more debaters reading scripts instead of cards, etc. I've grown the habit of calling for cards to confirm statements made by debaters.

In general:

I like warranted arguments. In fact, I would buy a strong Warranted and logical argument over an argument backed my evidence any day. Although I'll vote on anything, this is just how I evaluate it. I really enjoy impact calculus and would like to see that starting to be set up in Summary and maybe even in rebuttal. Just be really clear and extend your links cleanly.

I believe that 2nd Rebuttal should frontline, at least that's what I always did. I think it is a better competitive choice for 2nd Speaking team. At least touch the major offensive points of the case.

I am open to any critical argument and theory; however, I HATE frivolous theory. While I Think debate is a game, I do believe that public forum was an event made to be accessible to all as LD and policy became more progressive. That being said, go for it but proceed at your own caution.

Go as fast as you want, I'll tell you if you're going too fast. but for zoom, go slower.

Speaks depends on my mood. I won't ever go lower than a 27 for national rounds unless you give me a reason to tho.

Wear what you want, I just care about what you say (although I will include feedback for future lay rounds)

MY PARADIGM is also very similar to Saad Jamals:)

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=70840

Don't be afraid to ask Questions before the round because I know this Paradigm is short, but don't overcomplicate it!

Background: I competed in varsity pf and some speech at Dougherty Valley for 4 years.

What's important:

- Please warrant your arguments and weigh your impacts in summary and final focus.

- I can usually handle speed but if you spread or lose clarity, I probably won't flow your args

- I'm not very familiar with Ks, theory, and anything not traditionally in PF, but if you explain the argumentation well I'll probably buy it

- I generally refrain from calling cards unless I feel that it's super pertinent to the round (I'll try to keep judge intervention to a minimum), but if you ask me to call a card I'll take a look

- Things in Final Focus must be in Summary

- If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round

Berkeley 2020:

- First time hearing anything on this res (Monday is my first day judging) so keep in mind that I'm probably not familiar with the arguments you're running

Dougherty Valley '19, WashU St. Louis '23

Email: qin.andrew123@gmail.com

TL;DR, very straight up debater in highschool mostly went for CP/DA so I am most comfortable judging these rounds and rarely if ever went for K's if you are a K debater probably don't pref me. Also if you have wacky zany pictures of Kavin Kumaravel I'll boost your speaks

General

Judge instruction and clear weighing is how you will win my ballot.

Any defaults that I have can be changed throughout the debate.

I don't believe in 0% risk of an impact (unless an argument is dropped)

Impact calc in the final speeches are not new arguments

I lean towards trix bad not a fan

I find it hard to flow down T/Theory analytics so please try to slow down a little bit or send it in the speech doc

Default to extinction sucks the most.

Affs

Plans are fine, whole res is also fine as well

I mainly went for soft left affs in high school so I think that really in depth framing work and weighing makes it very easy to sign my ballot for the aff.

DA

DA's are epic and a core part of negative offense please read them.

CP

Counterplans are fine and also a core part of neg offense so reading them is fine

I will not judge kick unless instructed to do so

K

I'm not the most well read in kritikal arguments, the most i've ever read is cap so if you are a K team, then probably don't pref me. If you do want to read a K in front of me and go for it, the less work I have to do the easier it will be for you to win.

T

Default to counter interps, drop the debater

I find that T is a very useful tool for the neg to check back Aff abuses

Theory

Default to counter interps, Drop the arg, No RVI

I think that theory should not be read unless there is a egregious error in the round. But here are my general stances on several common theory arguments

- Speed

Generally, I think that speed is good, but there are arguments that can persuade me of the other side.

- Disclosure

Disclosure in general is probably really good for debate events like Policy and LD

For PF, I know it's not necessarily a norm yet so I'm up in the air and will be persuaded by either side who reads this.

- Paraphrasing/Brackets

Don't paraphrase or bracket cards are good it's also lowkey like an evidence ethics violation so like that's a whole other issue.

- Friv

Contrived theory arguments are the worst please don't read these in front of my I'll evaluate them if I have to but I don't want to judge a debate about this.

- PICs bad

I generally tend to think that PIC's are very smart and I encourage people to read them. I think I lean neg for PICs bad but I can be persuaded for the other side as well.

- Condo

Condo is good I tend to find it difficult to vote for condo bad unless it is a major issue.

About Me

I competed for 4 years for Dougherty Valley in public forum & extemp. Please add my email to the chain: thisissanji@gmail.com

Overall

- I vote off of the flow

- I am happy to vote off of any argument (tech>truth) as long as it is not blatantly offensive or bigoted and is well explained and warranted

Rebuttal/Summary/Focus

- I prefer for second rebuttal to frontline case (at least turns)

- No sticky defense (first speaking team should extend defense even if it was dropped in the second rebuttal)

- Please weigh the impacts. Otherwise, it is hard as a judge to choose which impacts are the largest and I will be forced to interfere

- Good link extensions. I won't vote for an argument if it isn't properly extended.

- No new args in second final focus. If something new is brought up in second summary, first final can respond but preferably by that time neither side is reading new args anyways (includes weighing)

Evidence

- I will call for cards if: a debater asks me to, it seems sketchy, or I want it for myself :)

- I try my best not to intervene with evidence, but if it is blatantly clipped/misinterpreted, I will drop the card.

Cross

- I don't flow cross but it will count in your speaks

- Be as assertive as you want but don't be mean :)

Progressive Arguments

- I am somewhat comfortable evaluating framing & theory. Personally, I have mostly debated against disclosure, paraphrasing, or trigger warning shells so I am most comfortable with these. However, I am happy to evaluate anything as long as you explain it well.

- I am less accustomed to Ks but if you can explain it I am down to vote off of anything

General Notes

- Please signpost

- Speed is usually okay as long as you are clear. If you are going fast I would prefer a speech doc.

- Inclusion is really important so please prioritize that :)

Feel free to message me on messenger or email if you have any questions. Have fun and good luck!

Dougherty Valley 20'

Email: anuragrao315@gmail.com

I agree with Albert Sun:

"Refer to Arjun Tambe's judge philosophy:"

General Beliefs

-If you want me to know something about you (like pronouns or triggers or wtv) tell me before the round.

-If i call for a card you should give it to me. Flashing isn't prep unless it takes really long.

- Stop the round for card clipping, if you are right it's an L 20 for the other person.
-Brackets are fine it's its for problematic language or because you removed a graph or something. Otherwise i'm skeptical.
-I won't vote on arguments I didn't flow, and args I didn't understand will take a very minimal explanation to beat back
- Tech > Truth, however argument quality matters a lot. Even though something is dropped it needs to have a warrant and be explained. Just saying "Extend X card" and moving on is not enough.

-I prob won't get presumption if it has anything to do with tricks or phil

- If I see clever strategic moves or smart args your speaks will reflect that

-If i've had to call clear or slow like 3 times i'm not going to flow.
- I see a lot less evidence comparison in debate. If you compare cards and their sources I will heavily be persuaded. A lot of times I see people only reading evidence without any comparison and that gives me no reason to think the card you read is any better than the card I read.

- I don't want to intervene in this debate. Tell me what to do with certain arguments and what this implicates. Like I said above, I want to see you do the evidence comparison and break down the ballot.

-Tricks are not arguments. Tricks make me hate myself. This is actually why people feel like quitting debate like every two months. Stop being an ass. Do everyone a favor and cut some cards like the rest of us.

Counterplans and disads

-This is the run of what I read now, so i'll be most comfortable with this style of debate.

-Impact calc is a must. Disads can have a number of different impacts and interact with a number of different framing args. Contextualizing the disad in terms of case solvency or their framing is always a good idea.

-I like politics disads, but the threshold for explaining and winning a risk of an impact is somewhat high, given that the disad scenario is probably unlikely. Fiat theory can get very complicated, but I'm open to hearing your interpretation of what fiat includes when discussing links to certain disads. Also process counterplans are cool.

-I like well thought-out "plan flaw" arguments when the aff's plan is poorly or strangely written. However the impact has to be an actual impact. I find these blippy fairness voters to be insufficient. Try to contextualize the plan flaw as to a reason why the policy will fail. For ex. you read a plan flaw against some type of legal reform, and the impact is like vagueness which also functions as a solvency deficit.

-I like well-researched PICs. Sometimes the aff might defend something strange, finding unique and smart things to PIC out of are hot.

-Going for a link turn or straight turn to a disad in the 2ar is a p fire strat. If it's executed well your speaks will reflect that. But there's a high chance that this strat will backfire on you so you should really think of it as a last resort unless they rlly screwed up or like conceded it.

Topicality and Theory

-T/Fmwk needs to have some kind of external impacts. Procedural fairness is very unpersuasive unless it impacts out to like research or something. The best 2nrs on framework have a dense overview that's a nut

-T is a good generic strat if you want to go that route. I'll default to competing interps and drop the debater on T. There should be more evidence comparison in T debates between your interps. I don't see this frequently, and that makes me sad.

-I have a higher threshold for condo than a lot of LD judges. I think 1-2 condo is fine, 3 starts to push the limit. But at the same time, if your opponent truly messes up and concedes some massive argument off of the condo blip then i'd be persuaded otherwise. But I'm impartial to args like PICs bad/good.

Philosophy

-In general, I have no idea what NCs even mean unless its like the util/structural violence/kant NC. If this is your thing don't pref me high. I don't rlly know how to go for NCs in the 2nr, but if i look confused then you should probably have a thicc overview explaining the framing

- I will prob always find extinction first args important. Even if you read Rawls or some shit I'm going to be confused if you try to make extinction doesn't matter args. The best way to disprove extinction first is probability first or some critical reason why focusing on extinction engenders violence.

Critiques
-I assume kritiks/links to the aff’s representations should be part of the debate. However, I can be persuaded otherwise.

-Permutations solve links of omissions almost all of the time. There needs to be a good explanation of the link in order to be ahead on the K, otherwise I'll think case outweighs or the perm solves.

-Explain and contextualize the alt. What does me voting neg do to solve? What are examples of the alt being enacted? Usually people read this power tagged card about the alt but never explain what it even means.

- You need to explain your postmodern scholar's thicc literature well to me. I think I'm familiar with a lot of K lit by now, but all the nuances of specific authors I definitely don't know.

-I do not find broad, sweeping "root cause" and other arguments (e.g., "the aff evidence should be distrusted because capitalism corrupts academia") to be persuasive at all, unless they are applied well to the aff.

-I see a lot of people trying to out-left the K. Why? Stop trying. You're not going to out-left someone who reads baudrillard. Impact turns, case outweighs, the perm, and framework are your best bets against any of these arguments.

Stylistic preferences
You do not need to waste a ton of time "extending" your aff card by card if there wasn't case defense.

Act like you know what you are doing in cx.

Please don't give crappy sass, no one will think ur funny

Enunciate between your tags and your evidence.

Any picture of Albert Sun, David Si, or Kavin Kumaravel gets u extra speaks.

Did nat circuit PF and Extemp at Dougherty Valley

I evaluate tabula rasa which means you can read whatever you want and I will evaluate any argument as long as it is WELL WARRANTED. Warranted evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence. TECH > TRUTH (again only if it is warranted well). Don't speak way too fast as you risk me missing things and lowering your speaker points, particularly in the back half of the round.

I won't flow cross so if something important happens bring it up in a speech.

Make sure to have clear SIGNPOSTING of your arguments in rebuttal, summary, and final focus. When doing extensions don't just extend last name and year, actually extend the warranting behind the argument as well. I would say overall I have a high threshold for off case args.

Anything you want evaluated in final focus needs to be in SUMMARY.

Exchanges of evidence between teams are fine as long as they take less than two minutes. I may call for evidence if it ends up being critical in round or if I am asked to call for it. I am unlikely to time speeches and prep time but I expect both teams to keep each other accountable.

To minimize intervention please remember to WEIGH your impacts and/or links against those of your opponents in final focus (or even earlier speeches).

If you are too rude or aggressive to your opponents I will drop your speaks. Please don't say my opponents drop this the whole round if they clearly didn't drop something, expect low speaker points if you do that. I will only drop a team if they clip/severely powertag evidence or act sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

I don’t like to shake hands. I don't care if you sit or stand and wear whatever you want. Try to preflow before the round.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round or message me on facebook messenger, or email me at shaheer.sandhu@berkeley.edu

Please add me to the email chain: tsxbcdebate@gmail.com

Top-level Debate Opinions:

1. I'll evaluate almost any argument presented to me in round.
2. If an argument is conceded and adequately, I'll consider it in my decision.
3. I love, love, love seeing smart analytics against bad arguments.
4. The best way to get my vote is by having a clear view of where you want to spend your time and telling me a coherent story as to why the arguments you are going for mean you have won the round.

2023-2024 Policy Topic: New to the topic. Don't assume deep knowledge.

Case: Contest the affirmative. Most AFFs are not well constructed and their impact scenarios are embarrassingly fake. So, if you are deciding between adding a T shell --- that you and I know you won't go for --- and having more case arguments, do the latter.

Counter-plans: I'll listen to any CP, doesn't mean every CP is fair --- tell me if the NEG is cheating. Using CX to isolate how the AFF solves, then explaining how the CP solves those mechanisms, is how to win the CP debate.

Disadvantages: These are my favorite debates to judge. Do impact calculus and sprinkle in some turns case analysis, and you have a winning recipe. Prioritize DAs that link to the AFF.

Kritiks: I enjoy well thought out Ks that have specific links and reasons why the 1AC is a bad idea. As the links become more general, I give increasing leeway to the specificity of the AFF outweighing generic indicts of topic or whatever the K is problematizing. You would also being do yourself a great disservice if you don't answer the AFF. Also, going for the K doesn't mean you can skip impact calculus.

K-AFFs: These are fine (even ran one for a season), but I think that framework is a powerful tool that is very persuasive if articulated well. If you are reading a K-AFF, thorough explanations of what voting AFF means and why that solves your impact is the path to victory.

Speed: I am fine with spreading, but always choose clarity over speed. I'll call out clear and slow as appropriate. Using a more conversational speed during the rebuttals is an excellent way to create contrast and emphasize your winning arguments.

Theory: I don't particularly enjoy judging these rounds. I'll still listen to your theory shells and definitely include it in your 2AC, but, if you are going to go for theory, have a compelling reason.

Topicality: T debates are fun to judge. What I enjoy are NEG teams reading T for the sake of reading T shells; why not just use that time to do something that will actually help you in the 2NR?

Thank you for opening my paradigm.

Dougherty Valley '19

Email: davidsidebate@gmail.com

Overview

-Debate how you normally would debate in front of me: fast, slow, critical, etc.

-My judging paradigm is similar to Scott Wheeler's

-I primarily read policy-style arguments, but have gone for K's as well. If you are reading a K I've most likely hit it before, so expect a cursory understanding.

Disadvantages

-Almost all of my 2NR's have had this. Read them as you usually would.

-Politics DA's are probably educational. I lean neg on questions of whether fiat includes PTX.

Counterplans

-Default judge kick.

-Read sufficiency framing.

-Condo is good unless there is a convincing reason why the specific advocacies force aff out of making certain arguments.

-Lean aff on cheaty counterplans theory.

Topicality

-Default reasonability. However, I'm neutral about competing interps vs reasonability.

-Weigh standards (legal precision vs limits) and also voters (fairness vs education)

-Assume I have no topic knowledge so provide case lists and warrant what constitutes "core of the topic."

Kritik

-Don't take buzzwords for granted

-Specific link work + alt solvency explanation >>> generic framing + ROTB

-I don't take a particular stance on whether the aff gets to weigh case, but when the arguments boil down to "moots the 1AC" versus "epistemology first + fiat double bind" I find myself (reluctantly) leaning neg.

-If your strategy revolves around confusing your opponent you will confuse me as well.

K Affs + Framework

-I prefer if these are in the direction of the resolution but this isn't a hard rule.

-Your counterinterp to framework should be a robust, defensible model for debate.

-You get perms as long as you convincingly explain what they look like.

-Here are some of my preferences

-Education >>> Procedural Fairness, but I understand the strategic incentives in front of certain affs.

-Policymaking bad >>> Limits are a prison.

Theory

-Drop the argument. Drop the team is reserved for condo only.

I did pf and extemp for Dougherty Valley and was decent at it for 4 years. I did NPDA for like a couple months in college.

My golden rules:

1. Ask Rahi Kotadia.

2. Refer to rule number 2

3. Add me on the email chain rohit.srinivas2@gmail.com. (I don't read ev (that seems legit) unless someone explicitly tells me to and extends it into FF)

4. PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE YOU REACH ROUND. I like to get started asap.

5. READING CARDS IS ON PREP TIME. IF YOU TAKE TOO LONG TO SEND EV I WILL START YOUR PREP TIME. I believe in evidence ethics and it is your responsibility to CUT cards and have them on hand for immediate access.

6. EVIDENCE ETHICS ARE KEY. IF I SUSPECT A CARD IS MISCONSTRUED/FALSE I WILL CALL FOR IT. If I do find it sus, I will tank speaks or maybe drop you. I have changed my stance on calling for cards in recent years because the quality of ethics has been declining severely. Now I do my best to maintain a fair field. I would prefer if everyone read cut cards, but I am not going to drop someone for paraphrasing unless someone reads paraphrasing theory.

7. I do disclose if you give me like 2-3 minutes to submit a decision. I will give oral RFD so stick around after the round. I will disclose speaks if you ask. I judge on how effective I believe you are at communicating. I default 28 if yall are kinda bad at conveying your args and go up to a 30 based on how well I thought you spoke. I can give feedback on speaking if asked.

PF:

Follow rules 1 and 2

Jokes aside I can handle anything pfers got. (I will tank speaks and reserve the right to drop you if you do something icky though. This is supposed to be a safe space)

I will only vote off args in ff, I will not evaluate args not extended in summary. ANY ARGUMENT THAT YOU WANT ME TO VOTE ON NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED PROPERLY. A PROPER EXTENSION MEANS RUNNING THROUGH THE WARRANTS AND LINKS AND THE IMPACTS AGAIN (explain the whole logic behind the argument every time not just a title or name of one). If you are not sure what this means ASK me before round.

Is a blip an argument? Absolutely not. If i say the sky is green with no warrant that is not an argument. I will not vote on turns that have no impact analysis done either. You cannot win without explaining how a turn interacts with their argument and how it gives you an impact.

IMPACT CALC IS KEY TO MY BALLOT. Tell me how to vote. Tell me which type of impacts come first. Tell me why your argument matters more than their argument. If you do not tell me what is more important I will be forced to make a decision on my own and I default to (probability*magnitude) and factor in time frame where shorter timeframe boost probability and longer timeframe harms probability.

Defense is sticky if the other team does not bring up the argument again. If they do, you need to extend defense as well.

IF YOU READ OFF CASE ARGS IN PF PLEASE READ THEM PROPERLY I DO NOT WANT TO EVALUATE SHELLS OR Ks WITHOUT FRAMING FOR EACH ARG. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS ASK BEFORE RD BEGINS. my threshold for tossing out theory spikes is low as long as it is not dropped.

Other args/events:

I did policy camp and picked up college Parli so I can evaluate theory args (Fw, T, random shells) and most common Ks (cap, set col, mil) . (if you do read a K please read it correctly). I do not have experience w stuff like Baudrillard and Nietzche. If you think your K is weird refer to rule number 2.

Tricks idk what to do with them, explain them to me like I am stupid and I might be able to understand. No guarantee I will vote on them the way you imagined.

CI>R unless told otherwise, condo good unless told otherwise (I do not have a threshold at which condo is bad because I believe the nature of reading so many args weakens each individual one), gimme a ROB.

No RVIs unless you have a good reason and win that.

Unlike Rahi I will not intervene and I vote purely off the flow.

Its been a year since I last did parli, so If you will be spreading I reserve the right to yell clear if you are unclear. If you are not a clear speaker above 250 wpm give me a speech doc. If you are clear I will need a speech doc around 275+.

Also please give me a proper off time road map/tell me what papers to put on top of each other.

About Me:

Debated LD and Policy at Dougherty Valley. Duke 2023. Coached by Aleisha Readye and Arjun Tambe.

About Debate:

Use overviews (extension + weighing) in rebuttals

Debaters should weigh 'strength of link' between their impacts

I like good case debate on both sides

Debated most arguments, i.e. K, T, Theory, etc., in High school

I did circuit ld and traditional ld and policy for four years.

Read whatever, I’ll try to be tab and am tech over truth.

bring me water or snacks and I’ll boost your speaks.

don’t be racist, sexist or offensive

I did various forms of speech and debate for six years, and in that time, I learned a lot.

I gained a baseline fluency in expressing my opinions.

I learned to choose my words wisely so that what I spoke would resonate with who I wanted to listen.

I learned how to stay true to my beliefs -- and I maintain that a talented debater will have the technique so that they are never forced to argue something that they don't believe in.

I learned how to take responsibility for my words and actions, both within the debate round and without.

Debate is no longer a big part of my life, but it is not a past that I am ashamed of. I put my heart into my speeches. In my life moving forwards, I still use these skills and takeaways. And I am proud of how I have grown, on the basis of my previous best.

Farewell, Tabroom. Farewell, parliamentary debate.

-Chilsea, 7/31/2023

anything is fine just my threshold for frivolous theory is pretty high. if you have any further questions, I agree a lot with Brian Yang's paradigm. you can do a tabsearch for him

Add me to the email chain: amandayang555@gmail.com

Cal 23 (not debating)

I debated policy for three years at Dougherty Valley as a 2N, and attended the TOC in LD my senior year. I am most familiar with policy style arguments --however, tech>>truth and good debating will always outweigh my personal argumentative preferences. That being said, keep in mind that I am not particularly well versed in some LD-specific arguments like phil/trix (see below).

TLDR:

- CP/DAs/PICS/Case >> Topicality/T- USFG >> Stock Ks/Theory >> Identity/Pomo/Planless affs >> Skep/Friv Theory/Phil/Tricks, etc

- Clarity>Speed: it doesnt matter if you couldnt get to the last few cards if I understood none of it

- Slow down on analytics, especially in T and Theory debates. This is also pretty important for online debates; if you're comfortable sending analytics that would be very helpful in ensuring I flow everything properly

- I will judge kick if you tell me to

- terminal defense/zero risk of the da... maybe possible

- Just because a blippy argument is dropped does not make it an auto-win: you’re still required to explain the warrants and contextualize the concession

- Debate off your flow and not your blocks :(

K Affs: Not an auto-loss, but I would STRONGLY prefer to hear your backup policy aff, unless you don’t have other options. For me, the problem with K affs is usually that the counterinterp doesn’t actually resolve the limits disad, but tech>truth applies in obvious situations like if a) you successfully impact turn framework b) the neg doesn’t have a good external impact to framework

Framework/T USFG: This was my favorite argument to go for in high school. Depending on what type of K aff you’re hitting, fairness may or may not be better off as its own impact. I used to be most convinced by skills/movements type arguments, in which fairness instead functions as an internal link to education, but I am beginning to think that fairness can be axiomatically true depending on how the argument is articulated.

1 Off Ks against K affs: These can get a little messy for me; but while I would prefer just listening to a TvK debate, I will still do my best to evaluate the round (you may just need to be clearer on your explanations.)

CPs/DAs/Case: Not much to say here: I really like well-researched CPs/PICs, nuanced case debate, topic specific DAs, and politics disads. Go for your cheatiest counterplans! (that being said, aff theory is very viable in these instances as well). I think DAs with generic links are fine so long as you are able to derive logical analytics from a card that might be less specific.

Topicality: T was definitely one of my favorite arguments to go for. Good rebuttal speeches must compare the worlds that each interp justifies. I don’t usually think that semantics/jurisdiction arguments are particularly convincing.

Theory: I’d prefer if these debates happened in instances of legitimate abuse, or if you’re behind on substance and theory is the only viable path to the ballot. Given that, my threshold for what constitutes legitimate abuse has somewhat lowered after doing LD, so I’m fine with evaluating things like condo, pics bad, disclosure, theory against abusive counterplans, spec (in some instances), etc; as long as they are debated well technically.

- Not particularly fond of frivolous theory

Kritiks: Most of my experience has been with more "stock" Ks like security, neolib/cap, set col, etc. In general I 1) feel like I evaluate Ks in more of a policy-esque offense/defense paradigm, and 2) would prefer to not judge 1-off K debates. As a result, I'm also not the biggest fan of Ks that invariably link to every aff (which I find are usually identity and pomo); not necessarily because of the content, but because it’s easy to use them to avoid clash with the 1AC. However, I was also once an edgy Deleuze debater and understand the grind, so if you must read these, a higher degree of contextualization and explanation are needed.

[LD STUFF] Ethical Philosophy/Spikes/Tricks/Skep/Metatheory:

- As a policy debater I have very little experience evaluating these and know basically nothing about them aside from the fact that they exist

Speaks

- default 28.5

- better speaks if you’re funny/generally respectful and chill

- poor speaks for being rude/aggressive because it's honestly just annoying to watch

-0.1 speaks for “LARP,” “time starts now”

+0.2 speaks for attaching niche photos of Kavin Kumaravel