Anisha Yeddanapudi

  • Paradigm
  • Record
Paradigm Statement
Last changed 19 February 2022 4:11 PM PDT

Hi, my name is Anisha! I've done a TON of debate, so you're in good hands!

anishay2016@gmail.com - Please add me to the email chain

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

Overview (if you don't feel like reading everything):

I’m in general tabula rasa, but don’t try to convince me that genocide is good or that slavery was economically beneficial.

My general principle is YOU DO YOU. Obviously, I have preferences, but I'm always willing to be flexible; you guys are the ones debating, not me (sadly), so make the floor your own :) .

Truth > Tech. ANALYSIS! ANALYSIS! ANALYSIS! Honestly, I think that the terms tech/truth are used in too many different ways to get a clear understanding of what each means. BUT (for me) it's that I appreciate logic more than cards. So, warranting, logically debunking cards, understanding the logic behind your cards, etc. It doesn't mean that you don't read cards. (PLEASE READ GOOD CARDS!!!) I prefer great analysis to a mediocre card. However, a great card and great analysis won't hurt your chances. Also, this doesn't mean I won't evaluate certain args and I will still rely on the flow to determine the round.

I will flow as thoroughly as I can. In general, I dislike spreading but I'm not one to stop you. If your planning to spread, I would like a speech doc. If you decide to spread without giving me a warning, I can't guarantee that I will be able to keep up. And if you're going to speak fast, still speak well. I will shout "Clear," as necessary. However, after shouting "Clear" more than three times, it's going to affect your speaks.

I REALLY DISLIKE voting on someone's identity, so I would appreciate it greatly if you don't put me in that situation.

DO NOT play hot potatoe with args and contentions. Don't drop an arg and bring it up later as if it was never dropped, and expect your opponents to be able to respond. Biggest debate pet peeve EVER. So, please don't do it.

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

PF Debate:

Note: I was circuit PF debater. So I'll be able to catch any niche weighing, framing, burdens, etc. you decide to use in a round.

Remember to frame!!! And please connect back to your framing (a lot of PF debaters forget to do this). Don't just mention your framing in the constructive and never come back to it. If you win framing, you will win how I view the round and possibly the debate.

Please WEIGH! I don't really have any preference in the sense that probability>magnitude or magnitude>probability. You should convince me which one to prioritize, timeframe or severity, or some other weighing analysis can be a good tiebreaker. I'm also good with more niche forms of weighing, so be creative and use that strategy to your benefit!

Impact Calculus!

Tell me WHY you won the round. Voters are a thing, and they really simplify the round.

I feel like I need to say this twice: Don't bring anything up in Final Focus that wasn't elaborated on in Summary. And don't drop an arg and bring it back up later and pretend like you never dropped it (I promise you... I WILL notice).

These speeches aren't really designed for spreading. But again, YOU DO YOU, but I would like a speech doc.

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

LD Debate:

Trad Stuff: On the framework level, don't tell me which value/vc is better, but rather who achieves their value/vc. Be sure to know your arguments. If you do all of the basics well you'll probably get my vote (weigh, signpost, voters, etc.).

Note: I was originally a trad LD debater, and though I appreciate trad debate A LOT, I don't mind circuit, and I do understand it. However, it is important to note I am in no way a professional LD circuit judge. The ever-changing vocabulary and arguments are always going to be mind-boggling. What I have listed below are just general overviews of common argument types and my evaluation for them; they are ordered from my most comfortable to least (it's not perfect... but Plans, CPs, Disads, and PERMs/PICs are all equal in terms of comfort).

I accept plans, CPs, PERMs, PICs, etc.

Plans: Plans that go outside of the resolution but are still topical are great. Please give me some sort of solvency.

CPs: Provide me with the competitiveness of your CP. These should be independent advantages.

Disads: Give me a direct link to the resolution, not a vague one. Additionally, though I don't have a problem with unquantifiable impacts, if you go up against an opponent who gives me numbers, and you don't do a comparative analysis (weighing) at least within the 1 NR/2 NR or 1 AR/2 AR... it will be difficult to vote for you.

PERMs/PICs: Totally valid. Each side can try to convince me otherwise!

K Debate: I'm okay with it. If you bite into your own K... well it was nice knowing ya. Also, PLEASE explain it!!! And that means you should know what you're talking about! (A good metric for this is if you can explain your case to a 1st grader, no matter the complexity, with them understanding it.) Have a direct link to the resolution, not a general one. If the Aff decides to run a K... tell me why this is acceptable and why the Aff gets to be nontopical (if you are). I have done LD; however, I think it's physically impossible for anyone to be well versed in every single philosopher and their theories, so cut me a bit of slack. And please give me a ROTB, it makes my job much easier, and I'll vote on a K.

Theory: Theory debate is meh at the best of times when it's done well and downright painful when it's done poorly or unnecessarily. If you are going to claim abuse and play with rules, I will listen but don't spend your time there. I like to believe that abuse isn't just a catchphrase to get a ballot. If you run theory that points out LEGITAMENT abuses in the round (NOT, "oh their definition is abusive"), I will vote on it.

Phil: I'm pretty okay with Phil. I didn't run it in my career, but I'm cool if it's something you want to go for.

Trix/Performance (All the weird stuff): Please no. But if you must, I will stay for the ride. Whether or not I vote for you will be a separate battle.

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

Some Random General Notes and Pet Peeves:

Please do not state that if judges don't vote for your arg, we are now ableist, sexist, racist, etc. If you still do, I won't drop you as a debater (though it will be tempting)... but your speaks will be nuked.

Love clash! Ships passing in the night are boring.

I am a non-interventionalist judge. I will not make links, args, connections, impacts, etc., for you.

Don't run an argument that you cannot explain, especially with me. If you're opponent catches on to your inability to explain and you seem to rely more heavily on your cards than your head, my ballot probably won't be in your favor. That being said... if your opponent makes a logical argument of some kind, please DO NOT ONLY use "do you have a card for that?" as your rebuttal. I won't vote you down, but I will not be pleased with the lack of clash.

Speaker points: I award speaks based on content, structure, strategy, and actual speaking ability.

Extra speaks if you can make me laugh.

I don't flow CX. If something important goes down there you have to bring it up in the following speeches for me to evaluate it.

FINALLY: Make sure this remains fun for both me and you (no ad hominem debate, please!). I wanna keep it open for you folks; however, if u have any specific questions, ask me in the round. I will be happy to answer them!

Full Judging Record
Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
15th Annual Claremont Wolfpack Invitational HS 2022-02-12 O LD Quarte Milpitas DY Los Osos MD Aff Aff 3-0
15th Annual Claremont Wolfpack Invitational HS 2022-02-12 O LD Octo Midtown FB Notre Dame San Jose AG Neg Aff 2-1
YFL 5 HS 2022-01-22 VPARL R3 A 2100 F 2101 Neg
YFL 5 HS 2022-01-22 VPARL R2 F 2101 D 2100 Neg
YFL 5 HS 2022-01-22 BQ R1 D 2300 G 2300 Aff
2021 Cal Parli Invitational HS 2021-10-09 Open Qtrs Menlo-Atherton Goel & Parikh-Briggs Irvington Bandaru & Bhatnagar Gov Gov 2-1
2021 Cal Parli Invitational HS 2021-10-09 Open Octos Menlo-Atherton Doran & Chen Renee Diop Opp Opp 3-0
2021 Cal Parli Invitational HS 2021-10-09 Open R5 Nova 42 Juarez & Carter Irvington Garg & Vajragiri Gov
2021 Cal Parli Invitational HS 2021-10-09 Open R4 Campolindo Ravikumar & Kenderski Campbell Hall Eick & Varnell Opp
Wilcox Bay Area JV Novice Invitational MS 2021-04-02 LD R5 Stratford Sunnyvale Raynor DS Peterson - Wilcox Debate Outreach SS Aff
Wilcox Bay Area JV Novice Invitational MS 2021-04-02 LD R4 Prestige KW Peterson - Wilcox Debate Outreach DD Aff
Wilcox Bay Area JV Novice Invitational MS 2021-04-02 LD R3 Peterson - Wilcox Debate Outreach VP Golden State AS Neg
Wilcox Bay Area JV Novice Invitational MS 2021-04-02 LD R2 Stratford Milpitas DS Burbank Senior MM Aff