Advik Shreekumar Paradigm

Last changed 11/11 11:50P EDT

I debated LD for 4 years at Brookfield East High School (WI), and judge a couple of times a year these days.

My Ballot

  • Set a rule for me to use and weigh through it. You can set a V/VC, standard, or some other kind of weighing mechanism. Define it well so I know how to use it. I'm not voting on who sets the criterion. I'm voting on whose impacts are the most relevant through that criterion.
  • I default to using my ballot to evaluate who best accessed the criterion. I'm willing to use my ballot as a tool if and only if I get a clear ballot story from you. Don't expect me to be convinced by a shallow critical argument about how affirming or negating have out-of-round impacts, especially when .


Your Arguments

  • Show me something interesting, or an argument you're proud of! That doesn't mean the weirdest case -- a well-warranted stock case is an achievement too. Run whatever case you want, but remember to give some sort of standard and be ready to justify your approach. I'm open to arguments that your US-spec case doesn't normatively affirm or negate. If you run an atypical case (e.g. a PIC) without telling me how to adapt I'll have a hard time squaring your advocacy with my baseline conception of affirming and negating.
  • I'll flow speed, but I can't flow spread. It's been some time since I was active. I'm also not a fan of speed used to obfuscate your arguments or spike your way to victory. If you get too fast, I'll drop my pen and stare at you. I won't shout 'clear' or 'slow'. It's on you to notice and adjust.
  • I'll vote on theory, but only reluctantly. My experience with theory is that it represents a barrier for debaters who want to enter the circuit, and is often used to sidestep substantive debate. If you want to run theory in front of me (especially if I’m supposed to vote on it), there had better be an egregious violation that you’re criticizing. Articulate theory clearly. I'm only loosely familiar with the formal structure of a T-Shell, so it's not in your advantage to shout "Interpretation!" and blaze onward. Tell me (1) what sort of debating norm I should be endorsing, (2) why, (3) where the violation happened, and (4) what that implies for the round or my ballot. I am extremely unlikely to vote on the risk of offense coming from a T-Shell. Strong defense on a T-Shell can be enough for me to disregard it; I'm also very open to dropping arguments instead of debaters; you'll need to convince me that your opponent is doing something so wrong that I need to reject not just that practice, but them as a debater.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R7 Minnetonka EM Lakeville North GR Aff
BEHS 10/7/2017 LDV R5 West Bend CM Sheboygan North RW Neg
BEHS 10/7/2017 LDV R3 Marquette Univ KT Appleton East KW Neg
BEHS 10/7/2017 LDV R2 Appleton East MM Marquette Univ PS Aff
BEHS 10/7/2017 LDV R1 West Bend ASt Marquette Univ SL Neg
BEHS 10/15/2016 NovLD R5 Bradley Tech AC Whitefish Bay BW Aff
BEHS 10/15/2016 NovLD R4 Bradley Tech AN Whitefish Bay RW Neg
BEHS 10/15/2016 VarLD R3 Marquette University AS Appleton North FA Aff
BEHS 10/15/2016 NovLD R2 West Bend CM Bradley Tech AK Aff
BEHS 10/15/2016 NovLD R1 Marquette University PS Bradley Tech GA Aff
Harvard Invitational 2/13/2014 JVLD Octos North Allegheny GR Brophy CP BM Aff Aff on a 3-0
Harvard Invitational 2/13/2014 JVLD R6 Walt Whitman MS Hockaday KK Neg
Harvard Invitational 2/13/2014 JVLD R6 Newtown EJ Randolph AP Neg
Harvard Invitational 2/13/2014 JVLD R3 Randolph EW Hunter College ET Aff
Harvard Invitational 2/13/2014 JVPF R2 Nanjing Foreign Language MX Ridgewood BK Neg
Harvard Invitational 2/13/2014 JVPF R2 Stuyvesant YZ Bronx Science OO Neg