Keshav Kundassery Paradigm

Last changed 1/6 7:41P PDT

The Mission San Jose KW Paradigm

I debated for Mission San Jose High School for 4 years, and was relatively active on the Public Forum circuit in my junior and senior years.

I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered below, ask them before the round begins.

- I evaluate arguments on the flow.

- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

- I am fine with moderate speed. Although I personally spoke very quickly when I competed, I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. If you want my ballot, you will be better served talking clearly; too much speed will hurt your speaker points.

- If there is no offense in the round, I will presume first speaker by default, not con. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.

- I do not take notes during crossfire and will only be paying attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech.

- I will typically only vote on arguments if they are extended in both the summary and the final focus. However, there will inevitably be exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.

- No new evidence is permitted in the second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from an initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses and criticisms of evidence are fine.

- First summary does not have to extend defense, but it is responsible for extending turns/any offense.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly.

- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it is never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to steal your shit.

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate.

- I will evaluate theory and kritiks if they are well warranted enough. As a warning/disclaimer, if something doesn't make sense to me, I may not feel comfortable voting on it. This means you will probably have to over-explain advanced and complex arguments.

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm. This does not mean you can wave away your opponent's defensive responses by saying "a risk of offense always outweighs defense," because terminal and mitigatory defense are not the same thing. Terminal defense points out flaws in the logic of an argument while mitigatory defense accepts an argument as a logical possibility and attacks its probability or magnitude. I personally dislike 'risk of offense' type arguments because I think they encourage lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity. Some things are more important than winning a debate round.

- If you plan to discuss sensitive issues such as suicides, depression, rape, etc., please issue trigger warnings at the top of your case.

- Please be nice.

If you have concerns, you can reach me at keshav.kundassery@vanderbilt.edu.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/26/2018 PF Q Tuto Ardrey Kell HB Quarry Lane AS Aff Neg on a 2-1
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 VPF QF Altamont CZ Corona Del Sol FJ Neg Aff on a 2-1
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 VPF OF Dougherty Valley BR Northwest Career And Technical GM Aff Aff on a 3-0
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 VPF 2x Hamilton BK Green Valley BB Aff Neg on a 2-1
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 VPF 2x Altamont CZ Starrs Mill HH Aff Aff on a 3-0
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 VPF 3x Grantsville CM La Salle CN Aff Neg on a 2-1
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 NPF R4 Sky View CD BASIS Scottsdale AV Neg
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 NPF R4 Corona Del Sol PZ Brophy CP RO Aff
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 VPF R3 Coral Academy Of Science Las Vegas NA Grand County CT Aff
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 VPF R3 Nueva KM Fairmont Prep KR Aff
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitational 11/17/2017 PF Doub Woodcreek BB Presentation NN Neg Neg on a 2-1
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitational 11/17/2017 PF Doub Monta Vista BA Bishop O'Dowd SD Aff Aff on a 3-0