Tabroom.com

Dougherty Valleys Wildcat Classic

2019 — San Ramon, CA/US

Debate Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jasmine Aggarwal Hire 8 rounds None

Dhruv Ahuja Hire 8 rounds

Neda Bahrani Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 8:45 AM PDT

Add me to the chain nedabahrani16@gmail.com

Please subject the email "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

About me:

She/her/hers… also good with they/them

Hey I’m Neda Bahrani and I am a current Junior at UC Berkeley. I used to debate Lincoln Douglas/Policy Debate with Dougherty Valley for 5 years. During my time on the team I was Policy Captain for DV and mentor our middle school team. I have competed in both LD and policy style debate through out high school as well as attended camps like CNDI and TDI.

I agree with almost all of Julian Kaffour, Magi Ortiz , Savit Bhat’s Paradigm/Judging philosophy

Tl/dr:

Number your arguments PLEASE

Don’t be offensive. Debate is a game, and supposed to be fun, so don’t take yourself too seriously.

Tech > truth. BUT true arguments are better arguments.

Tricks/Spikes - just no. I won’t flow these.

Friv theory - also a no for me

No RVIs

3 + condo = bad (for LD)

5 + condo = bad (for policy)

You can also refer to my teammate, Savit Bhat’s paradigm if you would like more info than this ^.

Top Level Preferences:

I’m good with anything as long as you do link level analysis and impact out everything. Winning the thesis of your K, your aff, your affirmative, or even your violation is not enough for me to vote for you.

1 - Policy/T

1 - K’s/ K affs

2 - Phil (actual phil, ie nc’s)

3 - Theory

4 - Strike for tricks

K’s

1 - Topic Ks

1 - Security

2 - Set Col

3 - Identity Ks

4 - Anthro/Humanism

5 - Cap

6 - Pomo (Pomo’s are 6 for a reason, don’t pref me just bc “she likes Ks”)

I do enjoy a good K debate. On neg the K winning a turns case, solves case, or some impact ow arg is something I usually like to vote for. I dislike when the alt is intangible and cannot be the intricacies cannot be articulated in cross. You should be able to answer the question “What does the alt look like in the real world?”

Straight Up

This was the style of debate I primarily debated throughout high school. I usually went for “edgy” pics like the asteroids pic, womxn pic, etc. So yeh love those. Honestly at the end of the day it comes down to impact calc and whether you did it and answered the line by line. I like GOOD arguments. My team, throughout highschool, has always produced a really high quality of cards and affirmatives, and that is something I have come to appreciate as I start judging. I hate opening the doc and scrolling through and just being like, “oof this is just a bad aff.” Because those bad arguments are just easily beatable.

If Lay:

If your opponent requests a lay round and it's a ggsa tournament or a "usually" lay tournament you should default lay. However, if your opponent requests a lay round and you are entered in Var TOC at an invitational, I am completely okay with you saying "I won't go fast." That is sufficient for me.

If it is a lay round, I look to who does the most impact weighing.

At the end of the day, be nice and have fun. Debate means more than just your wins and loses.

Mira Bali Hire 8 rounds None

Meera Bathwal Hire 8 rounds None

Ria Bhagat Hire 8 rounds

Riya Bindlish Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 9, 2020 at 12:35 PM EDT

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

Collapse!! This makes it easier for both of us when you don’t go for every argument in the round:)
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.
Clear extensions (only extending your impact is not an extension). Warrant out the most important arguments you’re going for in every speech
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

Ronak Chakraborty Hire 8 rounds

Pranav Chandra Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun December 6, 2020 at 1:04 AM PDT

I debate LD/Policy for Dougherty Valley on the National Circuit and am debating for in my 4th year now. My pronouns are he/him.

Please add me to the email chain, if one is being used: pranavchandra7@gmail.com

I am ok with any argument as long as links and argument correlations have logic clearly explained. Don't make an unjustified claim and expect me to count it on the flow.

Arguments:

- DAs - Do whatever you want. Any DA is always fun to listen to. Just make sure to buff-up links. Don't make a lot of links with little explanation on each one and expect to have at least one count.

- CPs - Same as DA on do whatever,

- K/K Affs - Ok with most Ks and K Affs. But please have clear OVs of what part of the aff (or debate for a K Aff) you are critiquing. I will most likely not understand your links if I don't understand what the thesis of the K is. And again, explain links thoroughly. I hate general links that have no meaning whatsoever with the aff, but will still evaluate them if they are left unanswered or insufficiently answered. And finally, links of emission are near cheating in my opinion but I will still respect a team's decision to read them if they are strategic.

- Theory - Theory is fun and my only statement on it is, do whatever you want. But, I am not going to vote on frivolous theory, so don't bother trying to prove that your theory violation isn't frivolous.

- Philosophy - Not great in most philosophies, so if you choose to read an AC or NC, please take extra time to ensure I understand your thesis, else it will be difficult for me to evaluate Phil.

- Trix: No trix. Trix are near cheating, if not cheating, in my opinion.

Technicalities:

- Tech >>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth. I don't believe I need to explain this further.

- Impact Calc: One of the MOST important parts of debate in my opinion and also the part that's the most forgotten. Good impact calc means good speaker points.

- Speed: I am fine with spreading but make keep in mind that clarity > speed. If I can't understand what you're saying, just forget the argument: I'm not going to evaluate it. However, I believe lay skills are also an underrepresented part of a debate that have their own value.

- Be nice: I want the debate to be respectful and fun. I understand competition and getting into the heat of the moment, so I will understand and sympathize with passionate speeches with slight aggression but stay within limits and I won't have to dock speaker points.

Be nice, have fun, and learn something new because the point of debate is to learn something new (education and clash > fairness)!

Romir Chandra Hire 8 rounds None

Siddharth Cherukupalli Hire 8 rounds

Darshan Desai Hire 8 rounds

Nathan Dornala Hire 8 rounds

Kabir Dubey Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 18, 2023 at 11:00 AM EDT

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.

Mike Finnessey Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 10, 2023 at 2:03 PM PDT

Stanford 2023 Update

Paradigm below is still accurate for parli, but I’m judging CA LD. Feel free to skim/read the whole paradigm below to get a sense of my general views on debate if you want to. Not opposed to speed or a more circuit style of debate, but will roll with whatever you feel good doing (which will probably be what’s most persuasive). I have literally no topic exposure. Please send the speech doc if you have one.

=====

About this Paradigm

Elements of this paradigm are inspired by the (what I found to be very helpful) paradigms of Khamani Griffin, Meera Keskar, and Jon Telebrico among others.
The highlights are at the top (the rest is under specifics). The 2 minute version of the whole paradigm is bolded.
This paradigm is written with parli as its primary focus. I outline some specifics for other events at the bottom.
Last updated 04/27/2021.

About Me

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Dougherty Valley ‘20

4 years of debate (3.5 years in open).
Primarily parli with a little bit of extemp, impromptu, and world schools.
- Parli was a mix of circuit/lay. I personally preferred circuit debate, but I did well with both.

UCLA ‘24

BP and NPDA

Lay Presentation/Clothing/Standing/Etc.

None of this will affect my ballot in any way whatsoever as long as it doesn’t make the debate space exclusionary for others.

General Judging Philosophy

I want to judge rounds where the debaters control the round and do their best debate. As a judge, I see my primary role as finding the path of least resistance to the ballot. These statements lead me to the two main rules of my paradigm:

I will avoid intervening as much as possible.
- This pretty obviously leads to me being tech > truth.
The preferences I list below are defaults - designed to minimize intervention in the absence of explicit argumentation - that are highly malleable.

A few qualifiers on those statements:

I reserve the right to drop debaters that choose to use morally abhorrent advocacies, arguments, and/or verbiage (keep in mind that morally abhorrent is a pretty high bar: if you need to ask yourself if your advocacy/argument/verbiage choice is morally abhorrent then please just don’t run it).
I will not vote on out-of-round issues (that’s an issue that is far better handled by coaches, tab staff, equity officers, etc.), but I will gladly be a conduit for bringing them to the appropriate tournament officials / coaches if you want me to be.
I protect the flow.
- Sorry, winning off of arguments snuck into a rebuttal ruins the integrity of debate as either a game or as an educational experience.
I have preferences, and I am obviously biased towards them. I do my best to minimize this bias when presented with argumentation, but I’m only human.
I will not actively fact check UNLESS:
- I am specifically asked to on a specific fact AND
- Fact-checking that fact is the path of least intervention to the ballot.
- Just use CHSSA evidence challenges please. That makes life a lot easier for all of us, and it's the technically correct way to do things.

Specifics

Questions/Clarification

In the interest of transparency and making flow debate more inclusive, feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm (especially if my paradigm doesn’t address your question) and/or about rounds that I have judged you in (please include your name, team name, the tournament, the round number, and the round flight). I am down to answer questions face to face at in-person tournaments, or you can email me at mrfinn (finish the last name) @gmail.com .

I am always willing to give an RFD and be post-rounded, time permitting. If possible, I will try to do this immediately after the round, but, depending on specific circumstances, this might have to take place after breaks / elim results are announced.

Framework

Trichotomy
- I am extremely flexible on trichotomy issues as long as both sides are ok with it.
- Value Debate
  - Please provide a specific value and value criterion and actually link back to / use them for weighing.
Skewed framework doesn’t make me want to give you more speaks.

Weighing

I WILL NOT WEIGH / CONSIDER ARGUMENTS OR PARTS OF ARGUMENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE LOGICALLY-CONNECTED CLAIMS, WARRANTS, AND IMPACTS.
- This is bolded in all caps because I want teams to understand that I avoid intervening by not doing work for teams that don’t make coherent arguments. If your opponents’ argument doesn’t make sense as presented, then I’m going to do my best to avoid finishing it for them; the same holds true for you. This is one of the most common things that leads teams to think there was judge intervention when there really wasn’t.

My default weighing is: Probability > Magnitude > Timeframe > Reversibility
- This ordering is not absolute (e.g. I will probably consider nuclear war with 95% probability to be more important than an ant dying with 100% probability).
- Please weigh your impacts for me. This is the single best way for you to minimize my intervention.

Layering

I default to weighing all arguments on the same layer. I’m not going to up-layer for you.
- For transparency’s sake, if I had a default layering it would be the following: Meta Theory > Theory/T > K > Case.
I am very skeptical of “voting issues” being up-layered with little to no justification. If you do this, then please spend time justifying it.

Case

Please break arguments down into Uniqueness/Inherency, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts.
- Please signpost these.
Please terminalize your impacts.

Plantexts

These need to exist if there is a plan/counterplan.
- Please don’t use any variant of “do the resolution.”
Nebel is sketchy.

Counterplans

I’m fine with all kinds of PICs.
- I have a higher bar than most judges for the various PIC-bad procedurals. If you are going to run one of these, then it’s in your best interest to prove abuse.
I default to not judge kicking per community norms. If you want me to judge kick, then ask me to and provide a basic explanation of what judge kicking is for your opponents (in case they don’t know).
- Judge kicking is when the judge can choose to vote for the squo in the case in which they think the plan beats the counterplan but not the squo.

Perm

The perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.
It’s in the NEG’s best interest to read some sort of perm defense (competition) in the 1NC so that it’s not all new 2NC argumentation that the 1AR can golden turn.
- Should be explicitly articulated as mutual exclusivity and/or net benefits.
- Competition by stealing funding generally doesn’t work. Perm do plan and all of counterplan except stealing funding wrecks this.
I default to viewing any perm that contains all of the plan and at least part of the counterplan as theoretically legitimate. I default to viewing severance and intrinsic perms as theoretically illegitimate.
- Severance perms are almost certainly cheating. Intrinsic perms are probably cheating.

If you plan on K-hacking without actually knowing your literature and K, then I’m not the judge for you. This does not mean that I won’t vote for the K, but it does mean a couple of things:

I will be more favorable to a K that is well-linked and clearly relevant but lacking in structure much more than a well-structured but questionably-linked and tangentially-relevant K.
I might not be familiar with your lit base, but even if I am I won’t fill in the blanks for you.
- Lit bases I have some familiarity with (listed from most to least familiar):
  - Cap, Biopower, SetCol, Anti Blackness, Fem IR, Anthro, Securitization, Ableism.
I probably don’t know every framing trick you’ve hidden.
- You can definitely hide them from your opponent, but you might also wind up hiding them from me.
  - If it doesn’t wind up on my flow after you spread through it in the middle of three bullets that you half finished in the impacts before realizing you were low on time and it doesn’t wind up on my flow, then sorry not sorry.
- Please give me and your opponents a text if at all possible (especially with zoom debate - please make it a little more fun for everyone).

I will vote for K’s with incredibly generic links if forced to, but your speaks will suffer. Please don’t commodify the K solely as a tool to get the ballot.
I think that K Aff’s that don’t affirm the resolution as written are probably cheating.
- Feel free to try to change my mind on this one. I’m honestly curious about how the NEG is supposed to participate in these rounds / have a viable path to the ballot.
I personally think that most K’s, as read at the high school level, have alts that lack real solvency and/or competition with the plan.

Theory/T

Overall, I have a lower bar for theory than most judges on the circuit.
I default to competing interpretations.
I default to drop the argument.
I don’t care about the following (i.e. they won’t impact my decision / ballot) unless they are raised as issues:
- Proven vs. Hypothetical Abuse
- Frivolity of Theory
Please read Theory/T in shell format.
I will vote on the RVI if read. I probably have a slightly lower bar for this than most judges.
- A justification for RVIs is NOT the same thing as reading an RVI. If you want me to vote on an RVI, then explicitly read one.

Speed

Unless you’re coming from circuit LD or policy I can handle full speed.
- The issue with most parli spreading is clarity rather than speed.
I will call slow or clear if I need to.
- If you make me do this more than twice, then your speaks will suffer.
Please be respectful of the speed that your opponents are comfortable with.
- Your speaks will definitely suffer if you don’t.
- I am willing to listen to speed theory, but I think that it’s often a weak / difficult argument.

Points of Information / Order

Please take at least two POIs per constructive speech.
- This won’t impact my decision, but it will definitely impact your speaks, especially if the debate becomes sidetracked by an issue that a POI could have easily resolved.
I don’t flow POIs as responses on the flow, but I do consider responses to POIs to be binding (i.e. if a team clarifies in a POI that a counterplan is unconditional then I expect it to remain that way throughout the round).
Please don’t abuse POIs as “gotchas.” That’s what your speech is for.
Call the POO, please. I will protect the flow, but I can’t guarantee that I will catch everything or that I am conceptualizing an argument’s place in the round the same as you are.

Speaker Points

The speaker points system is inherently problematic and should be replaced. However, until it is, I believe that participating in it is the best way to advance equity as a flow judge. I award speaker points solely on the basis of effective strategy and argumentation.

A general scale for speaker points (see above for specific things that might impact speaks).

<= 25 = Something Problematic / Arguments that just don’t make sense.
25-26 = Serious errors that probably lost you the round.
27.5 = Average, no significant mishaps or particularly good choices.
28.5 = Good strategic choices (likely to be around even).
29 = Great strategic choices (likely to break).
30 = Visionary strategic choices (likely to do very well in elims).

Other Events

World Schools

Models are very useful to clarify broad resolutions.
- This doesn’t exempt the proposition from it’s burden to affirm the whole resolution.
Humor is very much appreciated if pulled off well.
Please take points of information.
I will score speeches individually, but I expect to see coherence between speeches down the bench (a lack of coherence will definitely affect strategy scores).

Policy / Circuit LD

Please put me on the email chain if there is one: mrfinn (finish the last name) @ gmail.com).
I understand the core elements of the formats, but I’m not super familiar with their specific implementation (e.g. I know what theory is and how it functions but I’m not 100% caught up with LD’s or Policy’s norms for it).
I can probably handle about 70% of full speed without a speech doc.
- I’ll call slow or clear as needed.
- Please slow down on key parts of cards for me. It is highly unlikely that I know the topic well.
LD Specific:
- I’m most familiar with evaluating LARP debates.
- I’m down to evaluate kritikal debates, but keep in mind that I’m coming from a parli background.
  - I’m probably not familiar with your lit if it’s something more niche (see above for my general familiarity).
  - Parli kritks tend to be much more framework heavy, so make sure that you explain how you want me to evaluate the kritik.
- As far as tricks/phil go, not my favorite but I will evaluate. Keep in mind, especially with phil, that my background here is fairly limited.

Sruthi Gade Hire 8 rounds None

Arya Goel Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 17, 2021 at 2:24 PM PDT

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

Leah John Hire 8 rounds None

Haris Khan Hire 8 rounds

Sanjana Kotha Hire 8 rounds None

Vivian Kuang Hire 8 rounds

Sanyu Kumaran Hire 8 rounds None

Kavin Kumaravel Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 1:23 PM PDT

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

Aditya Madaraju Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 29, 2024 at 2:29 AM PDT

Hi! My name is Aditya Madaraju. My email is aditya.madaraju@gmail.com, please add me to the email chain. I debated LD/Policy for 3 years at Dougherty Valley during HS, and I am now a sophomore at Berkeley. This paradigm is for LD/Policy if I am judging you for PuFo or something go to the bottom of the paradigm.

General

Tech>Truth, but it’s easier to win more truthful arguments. I still won’t vote for tricks. Email me at the address listed above if you have any questions that aren’t answered in this paradigm.

DAs

I like these and went for them most of the time during my career. 2NRs on the DA should have an overview and good impact calculus at the top, which makes it far easier for me to decide debates. If you’re kicking out of these, make sure that you concede defense properly to make sure you don’t accidentally concede a straight turn, because that can be tragic. If you’re going for a DA without a CP make sure to spend enough time on case in the 2NR as well.

CPs

I like these, and think they are underutilized a lot in debates. The 1NC on the counterplan ideally should have some solvency mechanism, be it a carded solvency advocate or a sentence explaining how it solves, but it’s not something that I care too much about.

If you are going to read a kritik, please try to read ones that are somewhat relevant to the topic. Please don’t read identity Ks or pomo in front of me.

Going for the K--Links to the plan are more persuasive but if the aff has terrible scholarship go ahead and read reps links, I’ll vote for them. 2NRs going for the K should thoroughly explain the K and not rely on buzzwords.

Answering the K--I am persuaded by arguments like framework and particularity, which I will vote for most of the time. Impact turns vs perm+link turns should be utilized depending on how your aff is oriented.

Topicality/Theory

Topicality--I like topicality debates and started going for this argument more during my senior year. These debates hinge on predictability; weighing is essential and evidence comparison is underutilized.

Theory--I won’t vote for frivolous theory. 3 condo or less is fine in policy, in LD I don’t really have a preference/default. PICs, advantage CPs, and some process CPs are probably good, while consult counterplans and some process CPs are bad.

Regarding disclosure, you should open source documents. Contact info being disclosed on the wiki and disclosing when asked is a bare minimum, but it’s better if you open source with cites on the wiki.

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.

K AFFs

These are cheating and I will pretty much never vote for them. Framework is true.

Phil

I default util and modesty, and will have a hard time voting for anything other than these. However, if you are winning on the flow with another framework and have thoroughly explained your syllogism, I will still vote for you. No tricks.

Case Debate

Impact turns are highly underutilized, and good case debates are fun to watch. Spark is fine, but not wipeout.

PUFO

idrc what u do just read directly from cards don't cite them and make up random stuff and send all your cards that you read. otherwise its def an ev ethics violation. SAVIT BHAT's paradigm more accurately sums up my...thoughts on this issue.

Akash Mankude Hire 8 rounds None

Anish Maram Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 4:03 PM PDT

4 years of Policy and LD at Dougherty Valley High School (2016-2020).

Please add me to the email chain: anish.maram@berkeley.edu

General

- Tech over Truth (usually)

- Speed is fine; I will say "clear" if I can't understand you. If your opponent asks that you do not spread, it's up to you, but it won't affect the ballot or speaks (barring unique circumstances).

- No racism, sexism, misgendering, etc.

- Any default stances I have on debate issues themselves are malleable. All preferences are superseded by what actually happens in the round

- Evidence comparison and weighing are critical.

- Pointing out power-tagged evidence will generally be more persuasive than reading an extra card

- I won't vote on an argument I don't understand

- Unwarranted blips don't need to be responded to. I don't mean bad warrants, but rather the actual absence of any warrant attached to the claim.

Case, DA, CP

*These are the arguments I'm most familiar with and effectively always went for.*

- I will probably not vote on 1 condo. Anything more and it depends.

- I'm receptive to all manner of counterplans. If the counterplan seems sketchy, defending a perm that takes specific liberties to restore competition will be more persuasive than generic "x CPs bad" shells.

- Conditional planks are conditional advocacies

- Judge kicking the CP needs a warrant

- I like sufficiency framing

Theory

*I have a medium threshold on theory and T, so the abuse story needs to be there.*

- I default to competing interpretations such that theory is a non-issue if the offending debater meets the interpretation, has offense on the interpretation, or has offense that outweighs on a counter-interpretation; if you want me to evaluate under reasonability tell me what that means

- I like turns on standards

- I don't like frivolous theory.

- Metatheory becomes somewhat truer as the quantity of shells increases and significantly truer as their organization decreases

- I'm neutral on RVIs and default to no RVIs

- Spikes in the 1AC are fine, but tricks are not ideal

- I default to NIBs being bad

- I have no preference for fairness v education as voters; magnitude probably matters

Topicality

- I'm less receptive to an RVI on T than on theory

- Reasonability is stronger on T than on theory. That being said, I think the best T arguments are probably more convincing than the best theory arguments when applicable

- Apart from those two, same as theory

Kritiks

*I'm familiar with most of the literature bases, but nuances need clear explanations. I did not go for these arguments as frequently as others.*

------- General

- Specific links are infinitely better than generic ones.

- Don't obscure the link story with a swarm of buzzwords. When the debate starts, I am equally as ignorant about U.S. foreign policy as I am about pomo.

- I think role of the ballot arguments are rarely read in a persuasive way, and so are most root cause claims or claims that a lit base is epistemically flawed. This has less to do with their veracity and more to do with begging the question. 1 card from a tertiary source is likely not going to get me to throw out the 1AC, so please expound.

- Specific K prior arguments can be persuasive

- Tricks like floating PIKs are ok, provided that you can theoretically defend them

- If the K operates on multiple layers that can access the ballot, the scaffolding should be apparent in the 1NC.

- Articulation of the alt in the 1NC and CX should not be vaguer than later in the debate. If the 2NR is much more lucid, it's a new argument.

------- Performances/ K Affs

- Please make the advocacy of the aff/performance clear

- TVAs can be compelling, so you should tell me why the aff is key when not in the direction of the resolution

- Framework either needs an impact that outweighs the performative advantage or to place sufficient defense on the advantage to make the impacts of framework outweigh.

Philosophy/ Ethical Framing

- I default to epistemic modesty and see phil as an impact magnifier rather than the sole determinant of what impacts matter; if you want the NC to be a pure impact filter I need more justification than it being better/truer

- Pairing NCs with defense and risk assessment makes them much stronger

Divya Mehrotra Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 3, 2023 at 6:46 AM PDT

Hi! My name is Divya Mehrotra (she/her), and I'm a third-year at the University of Chicago! I competed for Dougherty Valley in primarily Congressional Debate & Extemporaneous Speaking for 6+ years, and I still coach for the Dougherty Valley team. I do have some experience in the other debate events, but I spent most of my debate career in Congress and Extemp.

Congress:

Presiding Officers: I highly respect you all for sacrificing speaking time to serve as a PO. However, that doesn't mean automatically being in my top 6. You are still expected to lead the chamber well and make minimal mistakes to be ranked by me. There is no guarantee that you will rank by solely serving as PO. My idea is that you've done a great job if I can't tell you were there in the first place. I will not penalize you for taking some extra time to be correct. Other things are that I'll definitely smile if I see a colorful PO sheet (it won't influence my rankings, but it does make me happy) and that I like funny and personable POs! A few occasional comments to liven up the round don't hurt! Also, as an update for the Tournament of Champions, I expect that all presiding officers are keeping track of precedence and recency on paper or on the chalkboard/whiteboard available in the room (basically, NO use of computers/tablets to track precedence and recency).

Cross-Examination: Being ranked in my top 3 means constantly participating in cross-ex. No one is above cross-ex, so please be sure to participate whether it is before your speech or afterward. In terms of evaluation, cross-ex can be the deciding factor in my ranks. I'm not big on having to remain civil during cross-ex. This is one of the only instances where you can clash with others' arguments, so feel free to be more aggressive if that's your personality.

Indirect: Please ask questions that are not answerable with a yes/no. Point out flaws in their argument and force them to confront any loopholes or flaws in their argument.
Direct: Please do NOT talk over each other constantly if you can. However, if you need to cut someone off to continue your line of questioning or reclaim the ability to speak, that's all good. These questions need a strategy to them; please have a direction that you are trying to take the speaker in.
For the TOC/Nationals: it is unacceptable for you not to participate in cross-examination. I will NOT rank you if you do not participate in questioning. You are supposed to be the best competitors in the country; there is no reason for you not to be questioning and participating in the round.

Flow of Debate: I greatly value all types of speakers. Whether you are giving the authorship or the final crystallization speech, you are contributing to the flow of debate. PLEASE be sure to give the appropriate speech for the part of the debate that you are in. Nothing peeves me more than crystals in the 2nd & 3rd cycle and constructives in the last cycle.

Authorship/Sponsorship: Intro should be relevant to the bill & organic. Indicate the problem to me, how your bill solves the issue, and the impact of passing this bill. The speech should set up affirmative advocacy. You need to address both the solvency and impact debates with this speech. If you set up a solid framework, I'll be incredibly happy!
First Negative: Intro should also be relevant to the bill & organic. Tell me why the aff doesn't solve the issue and what the general net harm of passing this bill is. You NEED to address both a lack of solvency and a net harm; the absence of either will hurt you in my ranks. If a net harm is difficult on a bill, I LOVE points like complacency or the bill's failure in the political realm (being meta like that is something I enjoy). Be sure to either address the author's framework or CONTEST it.
Constructives: I don't mind the speech structure here. Just be clear about your impacts, include refutations, address solvency if you can, and add nuance to the debate. NO rehash (I'll feel so sad). However, do not use arguments that are so nuanced that they are out of the realm of the legislation. Intros can be creative and organic here (I love humorous intros)! Overall, just do what you do best with these speeches. Everyone brings their own style to them, and they are valuable because of that.
Refutation Speeches: These can be more line-by-line refutations. That does not mean just namedropping someone and going into your completely different arguments. You need to fulfill the FULL requirements of a refutation: address their point with evidence or logic and tie it up with why your argument therefore wins. I would also LOVE it if you weigh impacts against each other. I love the debate jargon, so feel free to use it in front of me.
Crystallization Speeches: I'm okay with canned intros here. I prefer the content in these speeches anyways. You should either categorize the round through general arguments that have been covered or through questions that the round has been centered on. This is NOT the speech to introduce new arguments. Weigh on what the round has been focused on & tell me which side wins and why they do. If you don't weigh impacts in this speech, I just won't consider it as meeting the requirements of a crystal. You can and should introduce evidence that you use to weigh impacts. For example, "the aff wins b/c we prevent the most number of lives from being lost by decreasing air pollution" can be followed by evidence that explains how many lives can be lost to air pollution. Other than that, be VERY clear about structure in this speech & try your best to explain the round to us. The best crystallization speakers know how to posit themselves as the clarifying voice in a very confusing round.

Motions/Parliamentary Procedure: It honestly doesn't matter to me when ranking whether you were participating a lot in pre-round discussions or proposing motions a lot. What will positively influence my ballot is someone using parliamentary procedure to help include their fellow competitors. The use of parliamentary procedure to shut out someone or to exclude someone WILL drop your rank regardless of how phenomenal your speeches were.
Content v. Presentation: 80% content v. 20% presentation --> I firmly believe that this is a debate event. I will judge you accordingly. Please have solid warranting, arguments, refutations, weighing, and clash. Props to you for creative introductions & conclusions though (you'll definitely see me laugh if it's funny)! Though, you still need to value eye contact, an aspect of presentation that is even more important in person. It makes you all the more personable.

PF, LD, Policy:

I'm not too familiar with progressive arguments, so you can consider me to be more of a traditional judge in that sense.
I'm mostly comfortable with faster speakers, but I will indicate for you to slow down if I can't understand you.
I will not flow cross, but I will be paying attention. Please be strategic with the questions you ask; they can contribute to your rebuttals if successful.
I'm truth > tech. PLEASE make sure that you are warranting well & that you are weighing impacts.
Speaker Points: I start off at 29 and go up or down based on your fluency and overall presentation. I will not give you below a 27 unless you have made the round unsafe or uncomfortable.
You all can time yourselves for prep. I'll defer to your timing unless there are any issues raised.

General:

Do NOT create an unsafe space (no sexist, xenophobic, racist, homophobic, etc. language)! I will drop you in that scenario, and your speaker points will be quite low.
Please reach out to me if you have any questions! I'm more than willing to clarify anything said above and to add additional information. My email: divyamehrotra08@gmail.com
I'll be flowing regardless of the event!
Also, feel free to eat small snacks & drink any appropriate beverage as you see fit! I know that everyone has their own circumstances, plus y'all are probably prepping a lot in between rounds & forget to eat. So, I'm not going to penalize you for making sure that you're staying healthy by snacking during the round!
Overall, have fun! I loved this activity as a competitor, and I hope that you enjoy it too!

Arshia Mehta Hire 8 rounds None

Mishka Narasimhan Hire 8 rounds None

Puja Oak Hire 8 rounds None

Sanjita Pamidimukkala Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 14, 2022 at 10:10 AM EDT

email: sanjitap2003@ucla.edu, pronouns: she/her

hello! i debated in pf at dougherty valley for 3 years (doughtery valley kp and dougherty valley rp) and am now a sophomore at ucla. i'm a flow judge that will buy basically anything, but above all please make sure you are inclusive and kind.

- first: make sure you are reading content warnings with opt outs for sensitive topics (if you are unsure if a topic requires a content warning, better safe than sorry). if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, or discriminatory in any way i will drop you regardless of the content of the round.

- tech>truth, i love unique arguments that bring new perspectives to topics, i will not call for any evidence regardless of how sus i think it is if you do not prompt me to (i think that's intervention) HOWEVER, if i do call for the evidence and it is terribly misrepresented, i reserve the right to drop you

- second rebuttal should frontline, at least all of the offense, if you don’t i consider it dropped

- no "offensive overviews" in second rebuttal please, pf speech times were not built for this, if you are reading turns they must be implicated when you read them, i will not buy new implications into second summary and final

- i love love love weighing and think it's the best part of a debate round! please do it as early as second rebuttal. PLEASE please collapse on ONE argument in second rebuttal

- speaks are started at 28.5, i think speaks are arbitrary and allow biases to creep into judging so i will only go up based on strategic decisions made in the round or if you make me laugh , not speaking style

- you can talk as fast as you want but if i say clear 2 times and still can't understand you i'll stop flowing

- i prioritize WARRANTS over an evidence throwing party any day. good analysis > unwarranted stats

- i really really don't like when people get angry and mean during debate rounds. there is no reason to be mean over a round you won't remember in a few weeks.i will tank your speaks heavily for this :(

- summary and final should mirror each other and extend your case and impact. i will not vote off of it if the full argument and impact are not in both speeches.

- i have experience with theory arguments but if i feel even slightly that you are reading the argument to win ballots, not because there is abuse, i will not vote on it. i have slightly less experience with Ks but i can understand and judge most if you explain the warrants and framing.

above all, have fun! let me know if there's anything i can do to make the round more comfortable for you :)

Aayush Patel Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 9:24 AM PDT

Dougherty '20, LD and Policy

Cal '24

Please put me on the email chain: aayushpatel27@gmail.com

Update: I say go slower than normal later, but like y'all really got to try bc I have debaters spreading unsent phil indicts at top speed. I would suggest attempting to go like 80% percent speed so even if you undershoot you'll be ok.

I will yell slow twice. Slow down or I'll miss arguments.

Haven't much topic research, please explain acronyms. Please make an effort to go slower because we're online. It has also been a little bit since I've listened to spreading, go slightly slower than you would go otherwise.

Feel free to message me on Facebook if you have any questions

Shortcuts:

Policy 1-2

K 2-3

Phil 2-4 (The more trix you plan to read, the lower I should be preffed)

Theory 3-4

General:

I think Arjun Tambe is pretty smart and so is his paradigm.

-Compiling is prep/flashing is not.

-Spreading is fine but heed the bolded warnings above, especially in an online format

-I will read cards (especially if its a factual question) but I appreciate creative spin more than some on theoretical (in the philosophical sense) questions. I will still gut check args if they're blatantly misconstrued. Good author quals are great here.

-I won't vote on arguments that force me to consider activity outside of the rd. Disclosure is the only real exception

-I will also not vote on the appearance or attire of a student

- I'll vote for nebel but I really won't like it.

-Signpost for your life, my flows get messy sometimes

-People need to utilize cx more. It is my favorite part of the debate. Good cx will be rewarded with higher speaks. Good cx entails: Purposeful questions; Minimal clarifying qs, with those asked having some strategic purpose-this will be clear to me immediately during cx or you will make it clear by referencing cx in a later speech; Poise and a lil bit of (respectful) sass.

-Judge instruction wins rounds; I think Parth Dhanotra was very good at this. This includes really good evidence comparison

-Most of the below is malleable and you can convince me to diverge from my opinions in any round

Policy/"LARP"

I've mostly gone for policy-type arguments during my career and am probably best at evaluating them. So feel free to read them in front of me. Italicized text in this section is unabashedly ripped from former teammates and coaches who I will cite because I agree with them on a lot of things. I will edit this as my views develop.

Clever (sheisty even) CPs are welcomed (see the annoying Asteroids CP DV read a few years ago)

I default to judge kick but I usually forget--remind me if this is what you want me to do

1-2 condo is fine. I really hate voting on dropped condo against a single CP, pls don't make me

Process CPs are fun.

PICs are usually good, but I can be convinced otherwise.

A lot of CP theory is annoying, but I am more likely to vote for it if the CP in question is particularly underwarranted.

DA/Case

Impact calc/judge instruction is the name of the game

Specific disads are a judge's dream but I did go for politics DAs fairly often even though I wasn't always convinced of its terminal impact. So make turns case args that don't only stem from the terminal impact of the DA to make it easier for me to vote for you. Those that come from farther up the link chain are great. Also read a good process cp if you resort to generic DAs

Please emulate the homie Anurag "Straight Turn" Rao and don't be afraid to go for case turns in the 2NR

General K Stuff

I didn't read ks as much as I would have liked to, but I got deeper into them just before senior year was cut short and ended up reading a decent amount of K lit. Most things should be fine as long as it is well warranted and explained. Solid fwk explanations>>>jargon filled overviews.

I also really enjoy interesting Ks that are paired well with specific offense on case. In general, don't be evasive, do good link work. I will also not hand you your ontology claims, warrant them and defend them. Winning it is often an uphill battle when contested competently.

K Affs

The exemplar in my mind was Coppell DR's aff from a few years ago. Be like them and you're a lot closer to winning

Must answer the question "Why vote aff"

I will vote for affs that reject the topic but I prefer that they have even a tangential link to the topic. To clarify, I prefer criticisms of the topic, not merely of debate. There are exceptions to this for me, (some of DR's) rounds, but I think it is easier for the aff to debate this way.

More convinced by framework that can be leveraged as a link turn (think movements) rather than arguments about fairness, which I find are largely trivial and difficult to resolve. The best debates are where aff uses well-warranted evidence from its theoretical canon (as opposed to generics like Robinson) is used to implicate FWK.

I also enjoy K v K rounds where the theory of both ks are implicated and in which a lot of cards are read but dislike them when they're just a blitz of k tricks.

I love love love love good link work. It makes it easier for me to evaluate the round as well as for you to answer args on other parts of the K flow. Go for them as mini-das instead of chunking them together in an overview.

Most of the FWK stuff above applies here, although I prefer link turns to fwk even more when the neg reads the K.

I also kinda like Ks like legalism, abolition and security especially when they have a very specific link to the aff. Good security Ks have links to the specific nations or regions in question, for example, and have a lot of nuance. These often don't fit your cookie cutter understanding of the K. For example, I read a security K with deterrence on case against an indo-pak aff. These were reconciled with a very specific explanation of South Asian subalterity.

Say yes to the Floating PIK question with your chest and defend it. They are often very strategic and it is often not very hard to beat prewritten PIK theory

Other stuff I agree with:

Phil:

General: Phil is cool, I enjoy the odd NC but they work best when coupled with solid case defense (or a tricky cp). Phil overviews could do with more judge instruction. Tell me what I'm looking for. I generally don't like trix but I understand that they can be strategic, although you will have to make sure I understand. Just explain them well and warrant them early. I'll hold your opponent to a very low standard when answering lightly-warranted one-liners.

These can be my favorite rounds, but I find that they rarely are given how they are debated in the meta.

My favorite phil is the kind that still can win rds under comparative worlds e.g. arguments about side constraints on things like gov't policy that are not necessarily reduced to a totalizing "standard."

For this reason, I love love love love it when CPs are read with an NC to solve back some of the head scratch-inducing implications certain philosophical theories have in the minds of west coast judges like myself.

That being said I am easier to convince than most that util is untenable, but your understanding of my threshold for this should be informed by my preferences on other parts of the flow.

I like phil less and less the trickier it gets. The comp worlds vs truth testing debate is very similar to that of topicality, and I think that generally truth testing is justifiable. I just really really dislike the tricks that come with these debates and am bad at resolving them. So please just read a DA instead or something.

Theory/T

I didn't read much theory during my career, don't like it that much. RVIs will most likely only get voted for if dropped. Just make sure you make an effort to help me keep my flow clean. Default to competing interps but only barely. I can be easily convinced to vote for reasonability.

Do this debate like a CP/DA debate with with the cp corresponding to the Interp and the internal links/impacts of the DA being your standards. Voters are your terminal impacts.

Well researched T that has a very clear and universal vision for debate will always do better. This means its implications for CPs must also be considered.

Broadly I think T should be a pragmatic question. It is also fairly easy to convince me that bad res writing has resulted in bad debate and the res should be interpreted more loosely.

That being said, I made an effort to try and read linguistics papers in order to answer Nebel T my senior year so really a well-warranted and clear semantics smackdown is also welcome.

In the end, feel free to read whatever you want. As long as there is a warrant, I'll do my best to evaluate it.

Also, my flows get real messy so write my ballot for me in the 2nr and the 2ar.

This paradigm is always being improved; I'm still working to calibrate/remember my opinions, so please please please message or email me if you have any specific questions and chances are I will be able to provide you with a more robust answer than can be found here.

Shray Patel Hire 8 rounds

Mridul Prasad Hire 8 rounds None

Kartik Punia Hire 8 rounds

Priya Rajkumar Hire 8 rounds None

Sanjana Ranganathan Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 7, 2021 at 6:46 AM EDT

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!

Anurag Rao Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 13, 2019 at 2:57 PM PDT

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.

Eshal Sandhu Hire 8 rounds

Owen Spargo Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 14, 2021 at 1:42 AM PDT

Hey y'all! I am currently a junior debating in PF at Dougherty Valley. I've done PF for three years and did some policy as well. Here's my email if you want to add me to the email chain : owensspargo@gmail.com

For Western JV: went to a tournament on the topic so my topic knowledge is pretty decent

tech>truth

speed

I tend to speak pretty fast so speed is fine, just not spreading. Since we are online, if you choose to go very fast though you should be providing a speech doc for everyone in the round to accommodate for our current setting.

weighing

Strategy wise, weighing in second rebuttal is something I definitely recommend. After second rebuttal, weighing should be in every speech no matter what. I would prefer if all weighing in final focus is in summary, but I won't vote you down if you read new weighing in final focus. BUT carded weighing must be read in summary, not final focus to give your opponents adequate time to respond.

Please do comparative weighing. I don't want to hear that your argument outweighs on magnitude, tell me why it does. Nuanced weighing outside of the conventional weighing mechanisms are also very cool (this includes meta weighing aka weighing between mechanisms)

Don't read a turn or DA without weighing, or this is pointless. For example, when reading a turn tell me why your turn outweighs the case argument it responds to or I cannot vote off of it. Also don't read new implications off of turns in summary or final focus.

Weighing is essentially offense which means you should be responding to it. If weighing is conceded this also gives you a strategic advantage so keep that in mind.

Other stuff

I will only consider evidence if there is a warrant. A warrant without evidence will be evaluated over warrantless evidence.

In my opinion, it is most strategic to frontline in second rebuttal but I won't vote you down if you don't do so. Anything in final focus should be in summary I won't vote off of it if it's not.

I've only hit theory three times so I am not super comfortable voting off of it, especially if it is frivolous. However, if there is an abuse in the round that you think I should factor into my decision, feel free to run theory but make sure to explain it well. This same logic applies to Ks and topicality or other more progressive arguments.

Make sure to signpost to make my job easier. Link extensions should be in summaries and final focuses, as well as impact extensions. This isn't just reciting card names, I want to hear the narrative of your link chain as well.

Time your own speeches and prep. Don't yell during cross and be respectful, if you are being unnecessarily rude to your opponents I will drop your speaks.

If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible; debate is meant to be an inclusive environment.

Let me know if you have any questions and good luck!

Rohit Srinivas Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 12:34 PM PDT

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.

Athmika Sriram Hire

Stephanie Su Hire 8 rounds None

Gautham Sudhakar Hire 8 rounds None

Jaanavi Thanamala Hire 8 rounds None

Sohum Tiwary Hire 8 rounds

Khushi Wadhwa Hire 8 rounds

Chilsea Wang Hire 8 rounds

Hannah Wang Hire 8 rounds None

Jade Wang Hire 8 rounds

Joyce Wu Hire 8 rounds

Shannon Zheng Hire 8 rounds None

Ada Zhong Hire 8 rounds None

Login to Tabroom

Dougherty Valleys Wildcat Classic

2019 — San Ramon, CA/US

Debate Judges Paradigm List

Judges