Tabroom.com

Katy ISD Novice Night 1

2023 — Katy, TX/US

LD/PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Aidan Robert Asante Seven Lakes High School None

Zayaan Azer Jordan High School None

Trisha Das Seven Lakes High School

Maelat Habib Seven Lakes High School None

Fahim Jahingir Jordan High School

Tanvi Jain Seven Lakes High School

Kisa Fatima Kazmi Seven Lakes High School

John Lutterman Seven Lakes High School None

Achyuth Madhuvan Cinco Ranch High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:02 AM CDT

I am a current PF Varsity Competitor, Familiar with almost all types of speech events and all debate events. I am very technically knowledgable, do not limit the types of arguments you run.

Debate/general

Explain your arguments to me clearly. Recommended speaking speed depends on the event, but I have no qualms judging a high-speed debate round with technical terms. Voters are a must, the team who gives me the easiest path to the ballot will be winning the round. Speaker points will be given based upon speaking skills, not argumentative skills, and thus are not reflective of your technical skill as a debater, but with the persuasiveness and fluidity of your speeches.

Speech/ general

Body language is very important, I want to be able to understand your tone with more than just your voice. Time signals are fine if you request them, and I won't be too mad at a stutter here or there, especially in outrounds. BE ENGAGING AND FLUID. I cannot stress this enough. You must be able to draw me in with a good performance, do proper accents if you choose to have them, and create an overall good experience for the watcher. For extemp, make sure you speak clearly, and try to be a little more concise with your arguments, saying something with too many words is a big ick. Again for extemp, you can be the most persuasive person in the world, but I will down you if you come up to the stage and begin to spew utter nonsense. Have fun!

PFDEBATE:

My critiques for this will be much more lengthy than the others, due to this being my main event.

For Varsity: Debate is a game, go crazy. (no counterplans)

Speech by speech expectations:

Constructive: For at least your constructive, I expect you to be proficient enough with your case to be able to read you case in a fluid manner, with tone and inflection in your voice. If you can, eye contact is appreciated, and is an immediate increase in speaks. I will provide a 10-15 second grace period after your speech, but anything after that is completely ignored. I won't tell you when time is up, so make sure to time your own speeches. For later speeches, cross applying evidence from your constructive is very powerful for me, since this is evidence that has been in since the beginning of the round. For speed, I prefer constructive to be a little slower than most other speeches, to make it understandable, but I won't down a varsity debater for spreading 4 contentions and theory.

Crossfire: Not a super important part of the debate but super interesting for me, please make sure to be respectful. Anything past 2 follow up questions is just scummy and you hogging cross time. Try and come to crossfire prepared to ask questions, awkward silence on either just makes the debate less fun. Evidence should be called in prep time, not crossfire, however you can ask me in crossfire to look at a piece of evidence that your opponents have that you think is false. Falsifying evidence does not mean that I will drop you, but I won't consider any part of the argument as offense for either side.

Rebuttal: 1st rebuttal should 100% attacking, unless you're defending theory arguments. For this I don't really have a speed limit whatsoever, go crazy, but be considerate if this is a novice PF round. I know literally all of the terms, and I will basically evaluate anything other than counterplans because that's literally not allowed in the event. (If you run a counterplan in novice, I will drop you). I don't have a specific standard for analytics vs carded responses, but I will prefer whichever argument you tell me to in round. Clash is very important to me, so make sure that your frontlines and attacks are extremely responsive, this will make me disposed towards buying your argument. Terminal defense for me is super important and will probably lose you the round if you don't respond to it, unless you weigh out of it.

Summary: A super important speech imo, make sure that you weigh properly and frontline your arguments.DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY. For you novices reading this, this means that you must extend your arguments through every speech otherwise I won't consider it. Once again, you must be very responsive in this speech, and should probably start narrowing down the arguments in the round. Make sure to tell me what arguments are important and why I should vote for you. Finally,WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. The emphasis I put on weighing is so immense, that you can literally LOSE the ENTIRE ROUND'S arguments, but if you have the most fire weighing ever, you can literally turn the tide of the debate with this speech. Also no new arguments please.

Final Focus: Condense the round for me, think of your arguments as two ships sailing past each other in the night. Make your words the light that lets me see the ships. Explain to me why you won the round and why my ballot goes for you. Basically, easiest path to the ballot wins, I want to see you race there.

Postrounding: honestly funny, you can postround me even before I submit my ballot, know that it will never change my decision whatsoever. Critiques will always be given after the round on request, and I will always be disclosing.

Secrets of the ballot: Since you made it this far, here are some fun tips to win you the round. Starting off your final focus with a catchy phrase or an appropriate literary sequence will always engage me further. IMMEDIATE MAXIMUM SPEAKS FOR ALL DEBATERS WHO SPIN IN A CIRCLE EVERY TIME THEY READ A TURN. Finally, managing to rickroll me in the middle of the round will lead to maximum speaks,

Rayaan Rahim Meghani Seven Lakes High School

Arnav Mehta Seven Lakes High School

Last changed on Wed January 31, 2024 at 9:58 AM CDT

I debated for four years on the national circuit

tldr stuff is bolded

Add me to the email chain: arnavm.218@gmail.com

General:

Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win then "the government is run by lizards"

If you're clear I can handle up to 275 WPM but err heavily on the side of caution - you're probably not as clear as you think you are and I'm probably sleep-deprived. Slower = transcription, faster = paraphrasing; the prior is preferable for both of us

Post-Round as hard as you want - I'd obviously prefer an easygoing conversation over a confrontational back-and-forth but I know that emotions run high after rounds and can understand some spite

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

Part I - General

I'm not a stickler about extensions, especially when it comes to conceded arguments

I like impact turns and don't think you have to extend your opponents links if going for them

"No warrant” is a valid response to confusing and underdeveloped blips but I’m holding you to those two words, if they did read a warrant you can’t contest it in a later speech

Part II - Evidence

Smart analytics are great—blippy analytics are a headache

Read taglines if you are going fast. “Thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Use Gmail or Speechdrop, I've never been on a google doc for evidence exchange that wasn't unshared immediately after the round so I'm very skeptical of anyone that wants to use it

Send docs ALWAYS. It doesn't matter if your opps drop something if I didn't notice it either. Don't just send a doc before the speech, send a marked one after

Part III - Weighing

Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed

Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent

Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).

Make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene

Part IV - Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech

Defense isn't sticky — EVER. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there

I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," i'll be a little disappointed. I know the 2-2 our case-their case split has become less common over the years, but I guarantee you'll make more progress and earn higher speaks by generating in-depth answers to their responses

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

Theory:

I don't like theory debates unless the violation is blatant and the interp simple. Generic disclosure and paraphrasing arguments are fine, but the more conditions you add eg. "disclose in X-Y-Z circumstance specifically," the more skeptical I become and the lower your speaks go

I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure to do weighing between them

Don’t read blippy IVIs and then blow up on them — make it into a shell format

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win

Lots of judges like to project their preferences on common debate norms when evaluating a theory round. That's not me. I prefer comprehensive disclosure and cut cards, but I'll vote for theory bad, ridiculous I-meets and anything else u can think of and win (that "and win" bit is most important)

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. You must answer your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this)

Not a stickler about theory extensions — most LD/Policy judges would cringe at PF FYO’s dropping a team because they forgot to extend their interp word-for word the speech after it was read. Shells don’t need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final focus — I do expect all parts of the shell to be referenced in that extension

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, and reasonability can be very persuasive

K affs:

Do your thing but remember that I'm dumb and probably can't understand most of your evidence. Explain everything in more detail than you normally would, especially stuff like why the ballot is key or why fairness doesn't matter

Can be persuaded to disregard frwk w a compelling CI, impact turns, and general impact calc (prefer the first and last over the middle option), but you need to execute these strategies well. In a perfect K aff v Frwk debate, the neg wins every time

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap. Please slow down and warrant things out

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable

I prefer it if you introduce these arguments the same way as is done in Policy and LD, which means on fiat topics speaking second and neg

I think K’s are at their best when they are egregiously big-stick and preferably topic-specific. They should link to extinction or turn/outweigh your opponents case on a more meta-level

I’ll weigh the case against the K unless told otherwise, though I think there are compelling arguments on both sides for whether this should be a norm

Theory almost always uplayers the K. You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments

FW:

I don’t understand anything except Util and some VERY BASIC soft-left stuff, but I’m open to listen to anything

Tricks:

Paradoxes, skep, etc are interesting in the abstract but I'd prefer you not read them

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF as best I can

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants. I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends the happier your speaks will be.

Sebastian Alexander Migliavacca Seven Lakes High School None

Christopher H. Ou Seven Lakes High School

Batul Raza Tompkins High School

Anika Sud Seven Lakes High School

Ameerah Suleman Seven Lakes High School

Vishal Surya Seven Lakes High School

Last changed on Tue February 20, 2024 at 2:26 AM CDT

vishalsurya0704@gmail.com

Seven Lakes'25

Tech over truth. I do not share the sensibilities of judges who proclaim to be technical and then carve out an exception for death good, wipeout, or planless affirmatives. The only situation in which I will not vote on an argument is when forced to by the Tabroom.

This applies to everything. You do not get a blank check because your opponents’ arguments are “trolls” or “science fiction.” Whether something could be “read identically on a previous topic” has no bearing on whether it rejoins the affirmative. It is my experience and firm belief that the vast majority of judges who describe arguments in such a fashion are dangerously incapable of answering them.

With that in mind, I will decide the debate based on the flow and nothing else.

Evaluating Debates

I have a lower bar for a warrant than most. I am unlikely to reject an argument solely on the basis of ‘being a cheap shot’ or lacking ‘data.’ Unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross applications, or equally unwarranted arguments. If your opponent’s argument is missing academic support or sufficient explanation, then you should say that.

I’m strict about new arguments and will protect earlier speeches judiciously. However, you have to actually identify and flag a new argument. The only exception to this is the 2AR, since it is impossible for the neg to do so.

Planless Affs

Critical teams should pref me if they are confident that they can out-tech their policy opponents. If you can’t do this, then you will likely lose. I don’t have a strong ideological predisposition against critical affs, but personally believe the best arguments favor topicality.

Equally good for ‘fairness’ or ‘skills’ framework. The aff either needs to counter-define resolutional words or have an impact turn large enough to outweigh the full magnitude of the neg’s offense.

Critiques on the Neg

The best critiques are framework arguments that moot the plan. Critiques make almost no sense when they use the language of causation or are debated like CPs. By design, they lack uniqueness and attempt to establish exclusivity through something other than traditional opportunity cost. This requires an alternate framework for evaluation.

Accordingly, I am much better for frameworks that exclude the case (or, alternatively, exclude the K) than most. I will decide the FW debate in favor of one side’s interpretation, not attempt to divine some arbitrary middle ground that splits the difference. Of course, you are free to advocate a middle ground interpretation.

Topicality

I judge topicality like any other position. This entails defaulting to offense/defense, not randomly suspending impact calculus because the aff “feels” topical enough. Reasonability is a winnable argument but requires substantial investment and should be offensively framed.

No strong opinions about any standards. Fine for ‘predictability outweighs limits’ and the reverse.

Theory

Most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. The average theory interpretation is self-serving and contrived. All CPs have ‘a process,’ anyone can be a ‘solvency advocate,’ and any CP could ‘result in the plan.’

Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome. If, however, you manage to craft an elegant theory interpretation, I’ll be receptive. This could include ‘CPs can only fiat governments,’ ‘CPs may not fiat both federal and sub-federal actors,’ and so on.

My default is limitless condo. This is a strong default as far as the 1NC and a moderate default for the block. I can be persuaded some egregious CPing---like CPing out of a straight turn in the 2NC---is illegitimate, but I’m inclined to lean negative there as well.

Counterplans

Much better for process and competition-based strategies than most. I don’t share the community’s sanctimonious distaste for Process CPs and tend to think a 2AC requires more than sputtering with indignation. I won’t automatically discount a net benefit because it is ‘artificial’ or ‘not germane,’ nor do I take it for granted that process strategies are inherently less educational than their counterparts.

I’m equally good for ‘must compete textuallyandfunctionally’ and ‘functionally only.’ Textual competition alone is a hard sell. If the aff wins the CP needs to compete both textually and functionally, that justifies permutation that are partially legitimate.

I’ll judge kick the CP if no one says anything. If the aff wants not to, they need to say so in the 1AR, but it’s an uphill battle.

Disadvantages

I do not understand nor participate in the moral panic about politics, ‘generic’ DAs, or links to fiat. A disadvantage is just some negative consequence the plan brings about. The nature of that consequence is entirely irrelevant, so long as the neg is capable of winning it outweighs the advantages.

What fiat means should be debated like any other argument. My default is to assume that fiat entails durable, good-faith passage and implementation of the plan.

Case

'Try or die' refers to whether extinction is inevitable. If the neg only goes for solvency takeouts, then the aff controls try or die. If the aff drops an internal net-benefit to a CP and only extends deficits, then the neg controls try or die. This is a relevant consideration. Both sides should always be aware of whether they access try or die and either point this out or explain why it is irrelevant.

Zero risk is obviously possible, but extremely hard to get to in practice. If the neg drops 1AC impacts, you should reference them, but don’t need to formally extend them in the 2AC. However, the 1AR must always extend an impact for it to be eligible for the 2AR.

Miscellaneous

For online debates, I’d prefer cameras on. I won’t punish you if you choose to keep it off though.

You don’t need to take prep for tech issues, going to the bathroom, getting water, etc.

You don’t need to flash analytics.

Aarushi Thatola Seven Lakes High School

Akshitha Varre Seven Lakes High School

Davis Veith Seven Lakes High School None

Login to Tabroom

Katy ISD Novice Night 1

2023 — Katy, TX/US

LD/PF Paradigm List

Judges